The Honeymoon is Ovuh

“Only nine months ago, when he addressed an estimated 200,000 people in Germany, Barack Obama was heralded as “president of the world.” But now that he's president of the United States, the world doesn't appear to be following up on its endorsement. From France to Poland, from the Czech Republic to China, many nations are rebuffing the president and offering little wiggle room for him to negotiate economic and security policies” [FNN]

Anyone who was paying the slightest attention to President Bush’s eight years in office will remember that one of the common cries from the political Left was that Bush was destroying America’s reputation around the world. This was primarily applied to the former President’s War on Terror, even going so far as to say that America was creating terrorists because of our actions.

Which is why when I read the comments from world leaders linked in the above article, I find it ironic that Obama is now the one the world has no room for warm fuzzies. This means that Obama's honeymoon is ovuh, and I can't help but smile at this. Let me quickly remind the reader that we’re the most powerful nation in the world, the United States of America. We are the big kid on the block. It shouldn’t surprise us that we receive the most attention and criticism from even Western nations. However, even the more Socialist-leaning Europe is startled at our current President’s economic plans. France’s President Sarkozy stated, “We consider that in Europe we have already invested a lot for the recovery, and that the problem is not about spending more, but putting in place a system of regulation so that the economic and financial catastrophe that the world is seeing does not reproduce itself.”

You know something? Sarkozy is absolutely right. Europe has spent a lot; too much (the tendency of Socialists and other liberals). But European leaders have enough sense to know that when the United States spends more money on a stimulus package than Socialists do, that kind of a stimulus package could be disastrous. So much for Americans gaining the respect of the world =). For goodness’ sake, we have China lecturing us on economics.

Michael Medved commented on his radio talk-show this week that he believes former President Bush did spend too much money. He increased the national deficit, increased spending and increased government overall. Aside from his tax-cuts, most people believe that Bush was a disappointment towards his economic policies. So why would Obama, who wants to increase the national deficit, increase spending and increase government – each to a much greater extent – be considered a good solution to our problem? In other words, Bush is partly at fault for our economic woes. Why then would Obama, who is doing more of the same ol’ same ol’ work out differently? This is an important question that ought to be considered by Obama’s administration.

One thing’s for sure, it’ll be an interesting four years =)

Case of Base