Does Obama Have a Strategy?

I am going to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and say that he does not have a strategy for his administration, because if one assumed he had a strategy based on his actions in 9 months in office, they conclusion would not be a pretty one.

I assume that he is in the business of paying back and buying the future support of his "base". Afterall, that is the Chicago-way and Obama has shown his roots as a born and bred Chicigo politician. His base is 1) Union workers 2) Radical Left Peaceniks and socialists 3) Disaffected America Apologists 4) Naive Peaceniks who really believe we can live together with radical Islam 5) People who do not have health insurance. By the way, it is possible to belong to more than one classification of the Obama base.

Let's see if his actions support my theory, giving him the benefit of the doubt that no one is stupid enough enough to try to turn this great republic into a quagmire of government programs where the vast majority depend on the government to take care of them.

Tariff on low end tires from China..who does that help...oh yes, the union boys. Consumers get the benefit of more expensive produts and we get to see if China decides to retaliate. BTW, has Obama ever heard of Smoot Hawley? A period of recession has historically been a poor time to begin a policy of protectionism.

Healthcare, Insurance, Coverage...whatever it is called to day...reform. Well, this helps those in the 5th category, but it also, as written by the House, help the Union boys as they get special treatment and benefits that the rest of the proletariat have to endure with "reformed" healthcare.

Wavering on Afghanistan policy...this certainly is a payback for Peacenicks of any ilk. I thought Afghanistan was Obama's fulcrum on the war on terror. How can we, after 9 months in office, have to delay a decision on troop levels so we can determine our strategy. We don't have a strategy? Are you kidding me? What has been going on since January? Seems to me this delay is a way to not do anything that looks too hawkish or aggressive and make his peacenik supporters mad.

Investigating the CIA for interrogations we conducted in the post 9/11 war on terror. I've got to tell you, whether we waterboarded the bastards who architected the 9/11 massacre or whether we got potty water on the koran doesn't keep me up at night. Why are we going back to re-investigate something that has already been investigated?

Cash for clunkers...let's see who does this help....certainly the unions, although in a funny and happy twist of fate, Toyota sold the most cars during this ridiculous program. This also helped people who like having someone else'money (taxpayers who did not buy a car) given to them (taxpayers and non-taxpayers did buy a car and got $ 4500 from Uncle Sam).

GM & Chrysler Bailout...hmmm, too big to fail...or not. If GM and Chrysler had been allowed to "fail" like 99.9999% of most American business are "allowed" to do...their assets would have been bought by businesses and investors who thought they could make better use of those assets. There would be jobs in Michigan, just not union jobs....ooops! There's the rub. The fallacy is that if GM and Chrysler had failed, while it would have been a big economic shock, there is still demand for cars and trucks in the markets they serve. New investments, new capital would have remade the assets of GM and Chrysler into something viable in the market, rather than a ward of the state, but that would not have been a happy outcome for the union supporters of Obama.

See the pattern here? There is more and I could add more examples, but after a while it just becomes piling on. I guess the Obama strategy or rather his tactics are paying back those in his base, so he can do whatever it is he intends to do...once he comes up with a strategy...like that Afghanistan thing.