CNN’s Candy Crowley was perpetuating one of the American media’s favorite myths about Barack Obama, that his mere election in 2008 had radically improved the United States’ image around the world after those disastrous eight years of Republican George W. Bush, whose policies and flunkies caused so many foreigners to really dislike the world’s sole remaining superpower.

Obama’s “supporters,” said Crowley, “say that in two years he has been able to return this country to a status of being liked across the world in a way that America was not liked during the Bush administration.

“That he has once again made America a beacon.”

The trouble for Crowley Sunday was that she was interviewing Donald Rumsfeld.

Rumsfeld knows a little something about the world after being a military pilot, corporate executive, congressman, White House aide, Washington power-player and media adversary, as well as secretary of Defense during many of those Bush years.

“Do you agree with that?” she asked Rumsfeld with a straight face.

“Do you think that — that the U.S. is now looked at much differently than it was and much more positively than it was during your tenure?”

Referring to Obama, he told Crowley, “No. And I don’t think there’s data that supports that.

To the world, Obama is Uber Cool

“I think he has made a practice of trying to apologize for America. I personally am proud of America.”

For the rest of the interview and to see the comments of others on this article please follow this link.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2011/02/donald-rumsfeld-candy-crowley-cnn-obama-image-.html

Face Forward Comments:
What the article failed to mention is that Rumsfeld would have given her the truth, no matter the consequences.  Bush surrounded himself with tough men capable of making tough decisions.  I am not saying that everything they did was right or every word they spoke was the gospel truth.  But you never had to worry about them valuing another country over their own.

And finally to Ms. Crowley, I happen to agree with her assessment…….  Obama is much more popular all over the world than Bush ever was.  But then why shouldn’t he be?  He was born in Africa, Educated in Indonesia in Muslim schools, and supports a non-capitalistic, socialistic style of government.

WASHINGTON The House of Representatives on Thursday approved a $447 billion bill that boosts funding for large swaths of the U.S. government and reflects the priorities of Democrats who control Congress and the White House.

The House approved the spending bill by a vote of 221 to 202 and sent it to the Senate, which must pass it by December 18 or extend a temporary measure to keep the government running.

No Republicans voted for the bill.

The bill funds dozens of government agencies and boosts spending for the priorities of President Barack Obama’s administration, such as building high-speed rail and beefing up oversight of financial markets.

It would boost lending programs for small businesses, which the administration has identified as a way to bring down the nation’s 10 percent unemployment rate, and allow auto dealerships that have been cut loose by General Motors and Chrysler to appeal the decision.

The bill also advances liberal social policies, reversing restrictions put in place by former President George W. Bush and his Republican allies.

There is no way he can grow the government without attracting more lobbyists and more political acrimony.

By FRED BARNES – WSJ

One insight distinguished Barack Obama from the other presidential candidates last year. While he lacked experience or a special grasp of issues, Mr. Obama said he uniquely understood what ails Washington, and what was causing the endless squabbling and bitter stalemate on important issues. If elected, he said he would change the way business is done in Washington, end the partisan deadlock and the ideological polarization.

“Change must come to Washington,” Mr. Obama said in a June 2008 speech. “I have consistently said when it comes to solving problems,” he told Jake Tapper of ABC News that same month, “I don’t approach this from a partisan or ideological perspective.”

Mr. Obama also decried the prominent role played by lobbyists. “Lobbyists aren’t just a part of the system in Washington, they’re part of the problem,” Mr. Obama said in a May 2008 campaign speech.

I was reminded of this last statement by a recent headline on the front page of USA Today. It read: “Health care fight swells lobbying. Number of organizations hiring firms doubles in ’09.” The article suggested that what Mr. Obama had promised to fix had only gotten worse.

Indeed that’s the case. Washington is more partisan than ever, and more polarized. Even on a purely procedural vote to begin Senate debate on health-care reform this past Saturday, every Democrat voted one way (yes), every Republican the other (no).

With rare exception and with no objection from the president, Democrats draft bills with no input from Republicans. In return, Republicans vote in lockstep against Democratic legislation. Every House Republican voted against the stimulus, all but one against liberal health-care reform, and all but eight against cap-and-trade legislation that passed the House earlier this year.

Why has the president’s publicly expressed vision of a kinder, gentler Washington failed to materialize? I think Mr. Obama—while hardly the only person at fault—is chiefly responsible.

He might have spawned a different Washington, a less divided town with Democrats firmly in charge but Republicans actively involved. The bonus for Mr. Obama and Democrats would be higher popularity and better prospects in 2010 midterm elections. Instead, the president made three strategic mistakes—or, really, misreadings of the political landscape—and they’ve come back to haunt him and his party.

First, Mr. Obama misread the meaning of the 2008 election. It wasn’t a mandate for a liberal revolution. His victory was a personal one, not an ideological triumph of liberalism. Yet Mr. Obama, his aides and Democratic leaders in Congress have treated it as a mandate to radically change policy directions in this country. They are pushing forward one liberal initiative after another. As a result, Mr. Obama’s approval rating has dropped along with the popularity of his agenda.

Second, Mr. Obama misread his own ability to sway the public. He is a glib, cool, likeable speaker whose sentences have subjects and verbs. During the campaign, he gave dazzling speeches about hope and change that excited voters. His late-night speech at a Democratic dinner in Des Moines on Nov. 10, 2007, prior to the Iowa caucuses, convinced me he’d win the presidential nomination.

Third, Mr. Obama misread Republicans. They felt weak and vulnerable after losing two straight congressional elections and watching John McCain’s presidential bid fall flat. They were afraid to criticize the newly elected president. If he had offered them minimal concessions, many of them would have jumped aboard his policies. If that had happened, the president could have boasted of achieving bipartisan compromise on the stimulus and other policies. He let the chance slip away.

Red the entire well written article at The Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704779704574555471947300090.html

Beijing, China (CNN) — A little more than a year after his election, President Obama said his administration has laid the groundwork for success on global and domestic matters.

“I think that we’ve restored America’s standing in the world, and that’s confirmed by polls,” he told CNN’s Ed Henry in a wide-ranging interview this week during his trip to China.

“I think a recent one indicated that around the world, before my election, less than half the people — maybe less than 40 percent of the people — thought that you could count on America to do to the right thing. Now it’s up to 75 percent.”

The president said that makes it easier for world leaders to cooperate with the United States, noting Chinese and Russia involvement in nuclear talks with Iran.

Obama has visited 20 countries during his first year in office, more than any other U.S. president.

A decision on troops levels in Afghanistan is “very close,” the president said. “I will announce that decision certainly in the next several weeks.”

Obama has been holding regular meetings with his war council to develop options for sending more troops to Afghanistan. Last week, the president told the group — comprising top Cabinet, Pentagon and administration officials — that the U.S. troop commitment to Afghanistan is not open-ended and then asked for revisions to options he previously received, a senior administration official said at the time.

The war council is considering a request by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan for up to 40,000 more troops.

“We have a vital interest in making sure that Afghanistan is sufficiently stable, that it can’t infect the entire region with violent extremism,” Obama said. “We also have to make sure that we’ve got an effective partner in Afghanistan. And that’s something that we are examining very closely and presenting some very clear benchmarks for the Afghan government.”

For the rest of this story and a video:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/18/obama.henry/index.html?eref=rss_us&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_us+%28RSS%3A+U.S.%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Face Forward Comments:

I guess he thinks the world apology tour has helped.  For all of you Obama supporters, please name me one significant global or domestic policy that has helped the US.  I challenge you to go back to his days in congress and find anything.  Find it, send it to me, and I will publish it.  BTW Anyone know which poll he was using?