this is radio tabs

One has been informed that a new book entitled "The Amateur" by Klein is due out on May 15,2012. In the Book Mr Klein interviews President Obama's former physician one Dr Scheiner. Dr Scheiners opinon is that President Obama lacks humanity and is detached emotiuonally.

The following is a synthesis of what one has been continously writing about President Obama since 2008. Several week ago on your Shows "The Real Obama" segement Mr Rove stated that he thought President Obama was "Tone Deaf" and that his Class Warfare Rhetoric was a calculated move on Obamas part. One had previously written that Obama was now in the BUNKER OF HIS PRINCIPLES AND THAT WHAT WE ARE SEEING IS THE REAL OBAMA and that the only calculation on Obamas part is to go with what he truly believes. Further that due to Presidents lack of emotion he is tone deaf to the American People. Thus Mr Rove was a bit off in his analysis.

Obama Leadership
Monday, January 9, 2012 3:25 From: tabs
To: squawk@cnbc.com

This was posted to the Charlie Rose Comment Board for the Mathew Dowd interview of 12/7/11.

Mr Rose during the Dowd interview you asked, "Is it inexperience" in Obama that makes him a sic poor leader? The answer to your question is that if it were an issue of "EXPERIENCE" one would think that the on the job training of nearly 3 full years years would make Obama a more efficaious leader. THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE, President Obama is as inept at leading the nation as the day he stepped into office. Therfore there MUST be another cause for the Obama leadership style and that comes down to PERSONALITY TRAITS.

One will reiterate to you once again, in very clear terms why President Obama is a POOR LEADER:

1. Barrack Obama's personality set is more suited for academia than the Oval Office. As stated so many times before BO likes to stay in his head (INTELLECTUALIZE) and does not like to be emotional. BO pushes emotion away as being something confusing and messy to deal with. This is a sure prescription of someone who does not do well in real time..(Make Decisions)as decision making involves risk and therefore emotion. He will seem detached as Gen MCHrystal noticed in his conversations with BO on Afghan policy. Further his intellectualization seperates him from using emotion as an intutive device, this seperation leads him to make false assumptions based upon intellectualization about the mood of the nation. This is what makes BO out of touch with the American people.

2. BO's was brought up by a very "Socially Conscience" Mother. As such he has a perception of the world as seen through the eyes of Social Democrat/Marxist. His chosen profession is that of a Community Organizer,as such he does not understand what makes the US economy tick. Rather his Economic Perceptions are based upon ideological notions of social and economic equality which are anthama to the business class. He does not see nor understand the other side of the coin, nor does he listen and learn even though he may give lip service to the contrary.

Further Mr Dowd stated that Preident Obama "has never confronted his own Party." Mr Rose this issue was addressed to you, in an email in 8/09 and is reprinted as follows for the edification of the matter .

Why Obama Will Never Be A Lincoln

08/21/2009 - 02:20 — tabs

This observation goes beyond trite partisan politics, but instead goes to the heart and soul of a man. It takes a look at the inside of a mans character and the "true grit" that he brings to the table.

To begin with one must take a look at the mans personal history. As everyone knows BO was a kid who was moved from family situation to family situation. The hallmark of this as previously stated was that he was always the outsider looking in, even within his own personality. This has given him the objectivity of the outsider, or one who has the ability to be a detached observer of events and feelings.

It was only when BO met his Michelle that he was accepted for who he was and given the comfort and stability of a home. That he found love. It has been reported that while on the campaign trail he would always travel with someone from back home to give him the familiarity of that grounding stability.

BO has always been known as a cautious individual, always evaluating the risk involved in any political move. Further he has always relied on discourse as his method of achieving his goals. These two behavioral traits leads us to the third piece and that is BO legislative history, he has always voted Yes or Present with his own Party and never ever voted NO against his party.

This leads one to conclude that within him himself he can not risk being ostracized by his own political family. He will always go along, he will never be his own man but be subservient to the dictates of his own party. He will not face the fear and disappointment within himself of losing the only home he has ever known. He is not willing to go it alone in the world if necessary and suffer the slings and arrows of being your own man with his own principles and thoughts. This becomes obvious in letting his own party dictate the terms of the Stimulus, Budget, Cap and Trade and Health Care bills. This is why BO will never be a Lincoln.

Lincoln by contrast was willing to face adversity and was willing to go it alone if necessary, to be his own man. . The most telling fact of this in Lincolns life is the fact that he rose above his own fathers ostracization of him for wanting to rise above his station in life, that of being a poor illiterate dirt farmer from Illinois's. This was Lincolns transcendent moment. He became his own man guided by his own principles and own thoughts.

Because one wears the cloak of Caesar and or affects the mannerism of Caesar it does not mean he is a Lincoln, TR, FDR, Truman, Reagan or Caesar.

TABS

Posted to the Charlie rose Comment Board on 4/10/12.

A number of people think that the Obama "Class Warfare" rhetoric is a reelection campaign strategy devised to divide and conquer. Nothing could be further from the truth. President Obama himself has said that the greatest influence on this life was his Mother who was a "socially conscience person." Thus much, as a person who is brought up in a family that are sports fans and root for a particular team, Obama has picked up in childhood the ideology of being a socially conscience person as a core perception of the world. As such he truly believes his current rhetoric, and this is the REAL Obama. It was with the exit of William Daley as WH Chief Of Staff that Obama had decided to listen to his wife Michelle's advice about standing on his core principles. As such BO has gone to the bunker and primarily listens only to those old Chicago friends and associates who share his belief system such as Valerie Jarret and Mr Axelrod among others.

As a result of this going back to "principle" by President Obama there have been a series of political missteps that are driven by his intellectual over emotional decision making predilections. Even Axelrod was aghast at President Obama decreeing that the Catholic Church would have to pay for Contraception as part of their HC coverage. As who in their right mind would want to alienate a largely Democrat Party constituency like the Catholics in an election year? Further we have the leaking of possible Israeli plans to bomb Iran, the continuing venomous rhetoric about the Republican being "Social Darwinists" and his lecturing the Supreme Court about not messing with his "duly passed by a majority of Congress" HC Bill. Each of these moves is emotionally tone deaf as to how they would be perceived by not only the group that was mentioned but by the general public.

Mr Meacham should consider and reconcile the following after making his statement that Obama should get more credit for the Osama Bin Laden operation. On that Sunday President Obama went out to play golf and during the game was called away to return to the WH. Thus cutting his golf outing short. One would think that during such a critical operation that one would not want to stray too far from their command post in the WH? The standard WH reply to that train of thought would be that they wanted everything to appear to be normal. However cutting the golf outing short would raise the red flag of suspicion that something out of the ordinary was happening. This raises the question of why would President Obama be on the golf course when a critical mission was being launched, and then once there why cut it short? Mr Meacham any ideas?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Wednesday 5/2/12 at 9PM EDT NBC presented the Obama Hour. In that hour America and the world learned that President Obama is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful CIC that America has ever known. That he is a veritable Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon all rolled into one. That the decision to launch the assault on OBL was as momentous a decision as Eisenhower giving the GO to D Day on 6/6/44. Or as nerve wracking as watching the launch of the Doolittle Raid 700 miles out from Japan in February 1942. It was not only a heart warming experience that NBC produced but it makes one feel secure when in bed at night that America has someone like President Obama watching over us all. Thank You to NBC and all the White House participants who took their valuable time to relive those harrowing moments in the White House.

As everyone knows over the past 4 years the Federal Reserve has created successive waves of liquidity in order to keep the US economy from falling into recession. Where much of that cash has gone is into the pockets of Corporations in the form of retained profits. Corporations due to a climate of business uncertainty brought about by the current adminsitration in the White House has been hoarding that cash. It has been the hope of Business and the Republican Party that a change of occupant in the White House would create a more favorable/friendly business environment in which that hoarded cash could be unleashed into the economy to create growth. However the nasty truth of the matter is that since the Federal Reserve has put so many USD into the world economy any increase in money supply from that Corporate hoard being unleashed is going to create inflation. Since inflation is merely a reflection that the USD has been devalued those Corporations not to lose their value in those hoarded USDs will not be able to unleash them into the economy for fear of that inflation. Therefore not only is this a de facto tax on Corporations because they are forced to hold ever devaluing USD's in order to keep from realizing that loss but the Federal Reserve will have to continue creating liquidity in order to keep the economy from stalling out. The conclusion to draw is that the deficit and debt train has reached a point where it is moving of its own volition toward a cliff and there is nothing anyone can do about it as all the levers of fiscal and monetary policy no longer work except in a Catch 22 fashion.

tabs 04/22/2012 03:49 PM

Well here we are again, discussing the same thing all over again and what will the results be? Ms Lagarde seems to waver on the austerity approach to solving the Euro Zone insolvency. It is as if she can not bring herself to tell the people of Europe that they will have to have their standard of living adjusted. Better to adjust while you can to have some determination over the outcome.

Ms Romer seems to think that more Chicken Soup and less austerity is the answer, as she is worried that the high employment rate will become permanent. Welcome to social democracy Ms Romer. And again, how do you propose to pay for this Chicken Soup? When a person is neck deep in debt and adds a bit more that person may just drown in that debt.

Mr Subarrao said the most important thing uttered by this panel. THAT YOU HAVE AUSTERITY TO HAVE GROWTH. This was the model that the United States used to follow before it became enamoured with social equality. Completely abandoning austerity in the mid 60's, in favor of more...massive government OVERHEAD EXPENSE. This is the model that India is following and successfully at that.

Mr Carstens of Mexico is right on the money, as one also has repeatedly stated that a nation can not solve its debt problems by going deeper into debt (This is also Nasem Talbs idea of "Fragility"). That instituting a program of austerity gives confidence to the markets in that a responsible hand is at the helm. As one has said previously "one wants to mollify ones creditors." Here it might be pointed out that President Obama showed that he is just another ordinary intellect by allowing his Party to pass the snout in the trough of the the public treasury Stimulus Bill in 09. If he had truly been visionary he would have reigned in his Parties appetite for spending and passed a SMALL STIMULUS BILL for the psychological reason of, it was an expected remedy. If a small stimulus bill was passed it not only would have mollified creditors (China) by showing that a responsible hand (one who can think out of the box) is at the helm (Restoring confidence in a atmosphere of fear and panic) , but it also would have left a CREDIT RESERVE in the bank if the need should arise. Not to mention having a shallower hole to dig oneself out of.

Mr Borg largely supports the austerity of Carstens as the remedy. Adding that German structural reforms has kept their unemployment rate down, and that it is only with a European Union that Sweden being a small state can have a voice in world affairs.

The nasty truth is that the era of Social Democracy is coming to an end, it has gone BUST. Democracies can offer social programs only if a tight reign is kept on the purse strings with an ever vigilant eye on taking care of business (a metaphor) first.

One might also add that those "DARK CLOUDS" portend not only fiscal and monetary crisis along with a moribund economies but the method of rectification will likely be a return of the Sturmabteilung as evidenced by the fact that both Greece and Italy are being ruled by NON ELECTED governments. Spain and the UK both went conservative in order to avoid eminent collapse. Here one should remember that when the existing status quo begins to falter and fail that fragmentation and chaos ensues. Does anyone think it will be different this time?

While it is a natural inclination to look to past leadership for inspiration, the Republicans should be looking to the present and future to not only see what principles they believe in 2012 but to a new leadership that can be every bit as dynamic as Lincoln was to TR as to Eisenhower as to Nixon and then Reagan...a new leader may not exemplify Reagans priciples and vision but his own set of principles and vision. Look to the future and not the past . Look to where America is today, where you would like to see it go and offer a way to get us there.

He pushed the Crown away thrice?

The reason for Mr Putin's rise to power is simple, other than the familial association with the power structure going back to Lenin which gives advantage. Mr Putin study of International Law and his stint in East Germany before the fall of the Wall gave him knowledge of Western business practices and more over a network of contacts (One would look to see which Germans were involved in particular with the energy deals with Russia) Mr Putin was the facilitator/conduit and bag man for the powers that be in Russia after the implosion. In other words Mr Putin with his contacts in the west made it possible for those in Russia to make at first energy deals (Nord Stream) with western businessmen. It was all the DM's and USD that flowed into Russia via those deals that put Putin in the catbirds seat. The rest is history.

In this age of Global economies of scale people become depersonalized and alienated as they lose their names and become numbers in a data base file. Yet the trade off is that we get to live better and longer with more conveniences that we take for granted than the kings and queens of old could ever imagine.

So, are Mr Goldberg and Mr Ross trying to talk themselves, America and Israel into a war? That we might as well get used to the idea that war is the only option that remains in trying to thwart Iranian nuclear aspirations? The part of the Netanyahu AIPAC speech that no one has addressed is where he reads the Allied letter to the Jewish Congress in 1944. Pointedly where he reads the line that if the Allies bombed Auschwitz it might provoke the Germans to even greater atrocities. The point being that, wasn't the on going Holocaust an atrocity enough, how much worse could the Germans have made it? Further that by not bombing Auschwitz lives were unnecessarily lost by not disrupting German efforts. This was in affect throwing the gauntlet down in front of Obama by claiming that the political and moral laxity of the FDR administration in in not thwarting the German genocide of the Jews is being repeated by the Obama administration. For Iran is already committing acts of war against Israel and America and that matters will just get worse if the Iranians get nuclear capability.

In the final analysis no matter what the US or Israel might do or not do with regards to Iranian nuclear aspirations it is a no win proposition. It is going to be a very heavy cost for the WORLD (price of oil) to bear. The only hope is that the Iranians will acquiesce in some fashion, to stand down from their pursuit. The Iranians seemingly have no desire to accommodate America, Israel or the west in general on this matter. What Iran's ultimate aim is in pursuing a nuclear strategy is an unknown which causes a great deal of fear and trepidation in the West. Meanwhile behind all the smoke and mirrors the Iranians keep on plodding along to what ever end they have in mind

There ain't one of them candidates of either Party that is worth a warm bucket of spit. Perhaps we should embark on building the perfect candidate, by taking the best features of each one and incorporating them into one. The point here is that there never has been a flawless, perfect candidate from Washington to BO as each is a human being. We are simply going to have to make do with warts, limitations and all. Maybe the man we choose as a nation will rise to the occasion as some thought BO WAS going to be able to do.

Or just maybe the man we choose will match the times where the best and brightest have all run away. Perhaps the dictates of the Arc Of History will give us the man we deserve, one that is the embodiment of the political and economic system that we have built. Flawed men with feet of clay. Here one is reminded of the last scene in the movie "The Fall Of The Roman Empire" where the various men of power were bidding for the position of being Emperor.

One thing is certain, and that is that this discussion about this Presidential election cycle was as myopic as the rest. For they have failed to see the Arc Of History where we have embarked upon a new post 2008 era where the old power structures are giving way and a new paradigm is being formed. Here one has to be aware of the fact that power abhors a vacume and various combinations of new and old factions are going to be vying for power to fill that vacume. If one looks beyond the American domestic scene we can see that the same fragmentation and attending chaos is on the increase as the status quo of American political and economic hegemony is waning in power. From Europe, to the Arab Spring in the Middle East, Iran, Pakistan/India, China, South and Central America we can see that the winds of change are blowing on a global basis.