What Not to Do in a $35,800/Plate Photo

[PapaG]

All I got for $35,800/plate was the President's hand as my face!

 

[julius]

they already have something negative going for them, they're stupid enough to pay almost 40K to eat dinner in the same room as the President.

Talk about a glorified waste of money.

 

[EL PRESIDENTE]

Its Bush's fault.

 

[Natebishop3]

What the hell is David Stern doing in that photo!?

 

[speeds]

What the hell is David Stern doing in that photo!?

+ Reagan

 

[huevonkiller]

Awesome, you can't make this stuff up.

This photo fits perfectly with Ron Suskind's new book.

Mr. Suskind — a Pulitzer Prize winner and former reporter at The Wall Street Journal — has a flair for taking material he’s harvested to create narratives with a novelistic sense of drama. With Mr. Obama, who is depicted here as having lost the thread of his own story line, Mr. Suskind supplies a story line of his own: that of “a brilliant amateur” whose early tenure in office was marked by drift, hesitancy and an inability “to translate his will into policy on the occasions when he could decide on a coherent path.”

Mr. Obama emerges in this volume as an oddly passive chief executive whose modus operandi was to sketch out overarching principles, “wait until others had painted in those outlines with hard proposals” and then “step down from his above-the-fray perch to close the deal.” In “Confidence Men” Mr. Suskind suggests that this approach ceded oversight of the hard details of policy to others (Congress in the case of health care; the Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, and his deputies in the case of fiscal reform), leading to a loss of control and momentum.

Mr. Suskind also questions the president’s “growing inclination to seek consensus” in contentious policy debates among his advisers (much like his inclination to seek consensus with hostile Republicans in Congress). “The administration’s domestic policy was fast becoming a debate society run by Larry Summers,” Ms. Suskind writes. “Obama would sit on high, trying to judge if there was any shared ground between the competing debate teams that might coalesce into a policy.” Mr. Suskind asks whether this was “a model for sound decision making, a crutch to delay, or avoid, the decisions only a president can make, or a recipe for producing half-measures — a pinch of this matched with a scoop of that — masquerading as solutions.”


Some of the points Mr. Suskind makes in this book about internal White House dynamics will be familiar to readers of Jonathan Alter’s 2010 book, “The Promise: President Obama, Year One.” Many of his negative assessments of the administration’s handling of the economy and fiscal reform also echo arguments set forth by the economist Joseph E. Stiglitz in “Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy,” and by the journalist Michael Hirsh in “Capital Offense: How Washington’s Wise Men Turned America’s Future Over to Wall Street.”

Like these authors Mr. Suskind suggests that the administration’s problems in dealing with the fiscal crisis began with the president’s choice of his economic team. He wonders why Mr. Obama turned away from the advisers who had seen him through the campaign (including more progressive thinkers like Mr. Stiglitz, Robert Reich and Austan Goolsbee), and relied instead on two men associated with the deregulatory policies of the past, Mr. Geithner, the Treasury secretary, and Mr. Summers, the chief economic adviser. Both men had served in the Clinton administration (with Treasury Secretary Robert E. Rubin, who would later join Citigroup as a senior adviser and board member); their actions, Mr. Suskind contends, “had contributed to the very financial disaster they were hired to solve.”

As Mr. Suskind tells it, Mr. Obama’s bold promises as a candidate to implement a broad swath of new regulations to monitor Wall Street gave way to Mr. Geithner’s philosophy, described here as “first, do no harm,” a philosophy, Mr. Volcker says, that “always sounds reasonable” in that it calls for delay until matters worsen to the point “where there’ll be consensus that we need to act in a forceful way.” But, Mr. Volcker says, “you never get that consensus, because so many of the actors, the institutions and so forth, will follow their own self-interest right off a cliff.”

In what will be one of the more talked-about passages in this book — already disputed in the news — Mr. Suskind contends that Mr. Obama did decide in early 2009 that a plan should be pulled together “to restructure many of the large, troubled banks starting with Citigroup,” but that he discovered nearly a month later that this directive “had been ignored by the Treasury.”

Mr. Suskind characterizes this incident as indicative of the president’s authority “being systematically undermined or hedged by his seasoned advisers,” “a matter perilously close to insubordination.” He writes that when he asked Mr. Obama about the bank incident, the president replied that while the bureaucracy’s speed in executing his decisions was “slower than I wanted,” it’s “not clear to me that that was necessarily because of a management problem, as it was that this is really hard stuff.”

Mr. Geithner — whom one top banker quoted in these pages refers to as “our man in Washington” for helping avert more systemic changes affecting Wall Street — denies that he obstructed or slow-walked any presidential directive; the White House pressed him to stay on as Treasury secretary and he agreed this summer.

Regarding Mr. Obama’s determination to make health care reform one of his first priorities, Mr. Suskind says that many of the president’s aides worried that it would overextend an administration that was already facing two other huge tasks: steadying an economy still shaky from the catastrophic 2008 Wall Street meltdown and instituting financial regulatory reform (to ensure that a similar meltdown would not occur again). Mr. Suskind argues that the health care package that eventually passed — after months of bitter wrangling that further polarized the country — would be a watered-down version that did not really reform the medical delivery system or rein in costs through government-forced efficiencies as much as its proponents had hoped.

The former chief of staff Rahm Emanuel once observed, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” In Mr. Suskind’s opinion Mr. Obama failed to use the sense of urgency that surrounded the economy when he took office in early 2009 (not to mention his leverage as a popular new president) to extract concessions from bankers and health care providers, thereby squandering two huge opportunities: substantially to drive down the ever-ballooning costs of health care and to grapple with the systemic problems that afflicted Wall Street and fueled the fiscal meltdown, including too much leverage, “too big to fail” institutions, sky-high executive compensation, and dangerous and poorly understood derivatives.

By summer, Mr. Suskind writes, “fear had gone from both groups”: when members of “these two largest and most powerful interest groups, each at the center of the two great tests of the Obama presidency,” saw the president “up close, and poked at him a bit, they found he exhibited certain human frailties that might be easily exploited. What they also saw — many of them managers in banking and health care with long experience — were that his words were not being translated into action.”

The president’s own assessment of his first two years in office? Mr. Suskind says Mr. Obama told him that he, along with Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, shared “the disease of being policy wonks,” that he had been “very comfortable with a technocratic approach to government,” and that he needed to focus on the bigger picture. “Going forward as president,” he said in the February 2011 interview, “the symbols and gestures — what people are seeing coming out of this office — are at least as important as the policies we put forward.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/19/books/ron-suskinds-confidence-men-focuses-on-obama-review.html

 

[BLAZER PROPHET]

The chick in the upper row, second from the right seems "interesting".

 

[speeds]

You're kidding at this point, right HK?

 

[BlazerWookee]

As much cash as they raised, you'd think they could afford to hire a photographer competent enough to have everyone looking in the same direction...

 

[julius]

As much cash as they raised, you'd think they could afford to hire a photographer competent enough to have everyone looking in the same direction...

I would be that there were more than one photographer, and more than one photograph taken, and this one was just posted to emphasize the oddity/humor in his hand blocking the view of someone.

also, did anyone else see that Mr Bean was there?

 

[PapaG]

My bad, I was wrong. Apparently this photo was taken at the UN with a group of other world leaders from other countries.

It's even worse than I suspected. This idiot waved to the camera whilst in a group of supposed peers.

HAHAHA!

US President Barack Obama waves while standing with other leaders during the Open Government Partnership event at the United Nations September 20 in New York City

 

[julius]

My bad, I was wrong. Apparently this photo was taken at the UN with a group of other world leaders from other countries.

It's even worse than I suspected. This idiot waved to the camera whilst in a group of supposed peers.

HAHAHA!

its funny how you got the photo wrong, yet you still found some (lame) reason to laugh about it. This is kind of like how people made a big joke out of the door issue with Bush.

I'm sure that he "waved" to someone in front of them, and not to the camera, nor was it probably just 1 camera being used OR one photo took.

 

[PapaG]

its funny how you got the photo wrong, yet you still found some (lame) reason to laugh about it. This is kind of like how people made a big joke out of the door issue with Bush.

I'm sure that he "waved" to someone in front of them, and not to the camera, nor was it probably just 1 camera being used OR one photo took.

It was the official Getty photo released from the UN. It's ridiculous, just like Obama, and just like you getting all defensive about President Failbama and his failings and failures.

Also, Obama had his own door issue, when he locked himself out of the Oval Office. Remember that one?

It's a stupid picture. Laugh at it!

 

[Natebishop3]

+ Reagan

I noticed that too haha

 

[julius]

It was the official Getty photo released from the UN. It's ridiculous, just like Obama, and just like you getting all defensive about President Failbama and his failings and failures.

If that is what you need to say to make yourself feel better, go ahead.

Also, Obama had his own door issue, when he locked himself out of the Oval Office. Remember that one?

no, but I did a search for it. that is pretty funny. Although not the same as the one I referenced. Both aren't really worth the criticism and joking they received.

It's a stupid picture. Laugh at it!

it is a stupid picture. I just hope you'd have better things to post then the tripe you post here. You should sign up for better emails or alerts.

 

[PapaG]

If that is what you need to say to make yourself feel better, go ahead.



no, but I did a search for it. that is pretty funny. Although not the same as the one I referenced. Both aren't really worth the criticism and joking they received.


it is a stupid picture. I just hope you'd have better things to post then the tripe you post here. You should sign up for better emails or alerts.

Failbama has failed as President. Even the Dems are mocking him. It's a bit sad, but not surprising considering his inflated sense of self-worth (Greek columns outside in Denver???) and his jarring lack of any real experience. Has the guy even held a job in the private sector?

 

[julius]

Failbama has failed as President. Even the Dems are mocking him. It's a bit sad, but not surprising considering his inflated sense of self-worth (Greek columns outside in Denver???) and his jarring lack of any real experience. Has the guy even held a job in the private sector?

your act must be tiring.

 

[MARIS61]

That's NOT Obama's hand.

It is the hand of a caucasian midget wearing a black suit.

 

[PapaG]

your act must be tiring.

Living under this failure of a President is getting tiring. Scandals, political stunts, PASS THIS BILL when there is no bill to pass...

you're one of the last of his 100% defenders, though. That must be getting tiring as well. I remember your act on BBF when we had 5% UE under Bush and were bashing that administration.

 

[julius]

Living under this failure of a President is getting tiring. Scandals, political stunts, PASS THIS BILL when there is no bill to pass...

you're one of the last of his 100% defenders, though. That must be getting tiring as well. I remember your act on BBF when we had 5% UE under Bush and were bashing that administration.

my act on bbf? news to me since i wasn't there.

 

[PapaG]

my act on bbf? news to me since i wasn't there.

Of course you weren't.

 

[julius]

Of course you weren't.

if it makes you happy.

 

[jlprk]

My bad, I was wrong. Apparently this photo was taken at the UN with a group of other world leaders from other countries.

It's even worse than I suspected. This idiot waved to the camera whilst in a group of supposed peers.

HAHAHA!

After garnering our derision for your mistake, I guess your best cover is to keep laughing at Obama and hope we forget. Best defense is a good offense.

 

[PapaG]

After garnering our derision for your mistake, I guess your best cover is to keep laughing at Obama and hope we forget. Best defense is a good offense.

Hey, look at Barry! He's the one with his hand waving in an official UN photo!!

How long before you Dems have to primary the poor guy to put him out of his misery?

 

[jlprk]

Look at you waving your hand to get attention in this thread! This is immoral!!!

I can't believe this. Someone is waving his hand. This will definitely determine my vote a year from now. We Republicans love to be outraged, and I will think of this every day until I rectify the situation with my outraged, insulted vote.

 

[julius]

Look at you waving your hand to get attention in this thread! This is immoral!!!

I can't believe this. Someone is waving his hand. This will definitely determine my vote a year from now. We Republicans love to be outraged, and I will think of this every day until I rectify the situation with my outraged, insulted vote.

What is interesting is that this is something to complain about IF there is nothing else to complain about. But there are other things to complain about (manufactured by an email or not).

It just seems to be someone who wants to continually complain about Obama for the sake of complaining about him. Maybe papag feels that the "left" did it often with Bush and he feels it's his right to do the same for Obama (or maybe he just wants to waste his time crying "where's the bill!!!" or incorrectly reference the photograph as something it wasn't and then quickly change what he really meant).

I would hope discussions would have more substance then this, unless he's doing it to be funny. In that case, he should work on his talent.

 

[PapaG]

What is interesting is that this is something to complain about IF there is nothing else to complain about. But there are other things to complain about (manufactured by an email or not).

It just seems to be someone who wants to continually complain about Obama for the sake of complaining about him. Maybe papag feels that the "left" did it often with Bush and he feels it's his right to do the same for Obama (or maybe he just wants to waste his time crying "where's the bill!!!" or incorrectly reference the photograph as something it wasn't and then quickly change what he really meant).

I would hope discussions would have more substance then this, unless he's doing it to be funny. In that case, he should work on his talent.

Shooting the messenger is such an Alinsky modus operandi.

Our President is an incompetent fool. Where is his PASS THIS BILL!!! bill in the House? Even the Dems are running away from that flaming sack of shit political stunt. I don't mean to "trivialize" it, though.

 

[julius]

Shooting the messenger is such an Alinsky modus operandi.

Our President is an incompetent fool. Where is his PASS THIS BILL!!! bill in the House? Even the Dems are running away from that flaming sack of shit political stunt. I don't mean to "trivialize" it, though.

I'm not sure it's such a good idea to point out fallacies in arguing when you're the person who is known for accusing barfo if making fun of your kid for having lupus.

 

[PapaG]

I'm not sure it's such a good idea to point out fallacies in arguing when you're the person who is known for accusing barfo if making fun of your kid for having lupus.

Where is the PASS THIS BILL!!! House bill, julius? It's an easy question. The President is touring the country wanting his bill passed. What is its bill # in the House?

 

[julius]

Where is the PASS THIS BILL!!! House bill, julius? It's an easy question. The President is touring the country wanting his bill passed. What is its bill # in the House?

there is GOLD UNDER THE TWIN TOWERS. and I think if I CAPITALIZE certain words it MAKES it look like I'm PROVING my point.