Um curioso artigo de Gail Collins, no New York Times:
«If nothing else, the president’s trip overseas helped resolve the longstanding question of who can be more irritating, the Republicans or the French.
Before we pursue that thought any further, let’s agree that the Obamas wowed them in Europe. We were expecting a good reception, given the fact that the previous administration set the bar so low that Barack was able to get hysterical applause just by telling a crowd of students that Americans don’t believe in torturing people.
Back home, we’re just grateful that we don’t have to sit on the edge of our collective seats wondering how the president will embarrass us next. No more worrying that our chief executive might surprise Angela Merkel with a come-from-behind massage or fall in love with the president of Russia when their eyes meet across a crowded room.
In London, Obama was the most popular guy in the gang. When President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and China’s Hu Jintao got into a squabble, Obama took them off to separate corners and resolved the conflict, to universal applause. True, it only required switching the word “recognizing” to “note,” but in diplomatic circles, that’s what cool is all about.
“Look,” the G-20ers must have been telling each other, “he can resolve the controversy over the use of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s list of tax havens, and he knows the difference between Australia and Austria. Surely, this is a new kind of American leader.”
And then it was off to France, where the Michelle-mania spiked as the first lady and her French counterpart, the former fashion model Carla Bruni, went outfit-to-outfit. They both had bows on their coats! The wardrobe commentary was, to be honest, a bit much. However, perhaps we should be grateful to the wives for changing their clothes so frequently. It took our minds off the unemployment figures and allowed the news media to avoid having to cover the discussions on special drawing rights.
Before the summit began, Sarkozy had threatened to walk out unless he got his way on financial regulation. (When considering our French-versus-Republican contest, note that they both like to go into negotiations announcing that whatever happens, the answer is no.) But once Obama and he got together, the French leader said that despite their differences, his American counterpart was still “entirely in line with what we want.”
Which is not entirely comforting. Beyond Barack’s not-Bushness, what was it that Sarkozy found so appealing? He praised Obama as “a very open man,” but when you think of the things that the French like, is openness really the first thing that comes to mind?
Is it possible that Obama’s winning quality was his willingness to be a good loser? The president’s main mission, after all, was to try to talk the French and Germans into supporting a serious global stimulus plan, and he failed. There were other accomplishments, sure. But even the tiniest seemed to have required a lot of pandering.
When Sarkozy said France would help with the administration’s plan to shut down the Guantánamo Bay prison by accepting one released prisoner — that would be one as in “less than two” — Obama gushed that it was hard to keep up with “the great leadership of President Sarkozy, courageous on so many fronts.”
To be fair, the French, the Germans and the other heel-dragging countries have some reason to be dubious about getting too close to Obama in anything but a photo op. The Europeans don’t really trust American presidents to deliver on what they say, particularly if it has to go through Congress.
While the G-20 was finishing its business, members of Congress were showing how they did theirs by passing a budget resolution. The spending plan was somewhat smaller than the president had requested. The Senate also added the Republican priority of reducing taxes on people who inherit estates of $7 million or more — a move that would increase the deficit while stimulating the economy approximately as much as eliminating a sales tax on square potato chips.
But even so, not a single Republican voted yes on the budget. In the House, the G.O.P. came up with an alternative that would cut more taxes for the wealthy while clamping down on nondefense spending. House Republicans think we invest way too much on these government programs and try to cut back on them every single year that their party is not actually in power.
In the Senate, Republican Judd Gregg of New Hampshire predicted that the budget plan “will absolutely put this country on an unsustainable path.” This would be the same Judd Gregg who agreed to join the Obama cabinet as commerce secretary before a last-minute discovery that the president is a Democrat.
Actually, it’s no contest when you think about it. The French aren’t even in the ballpark.»
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário