Barack Obama Versus Asia: What Was the Point?

President Barack Obama at the G20 Summit meeting apologizing for not communicating his message effectively.

President Barack Obama returned from his 10 day trip to Asia having spent (fill in the blank) hundreds of millions of US taxpayer dollars in an attempt to...what, exactly?

The mainstream news media cannot find any salient accomplishments for the tour of Asia. The New York Times had the following headline: "Obama's Economic View Is Rejected on World Stage." The Washington Post? "Obama, weakened after midterms, reveals limited leverage in failed S. Korea deal." The Free Press? "Barack Obama won't bring home new U.S.-South Korea free trade deal." Slate? "America Undone: President Obama's disastrous Asia trip reveals the monumental decline in American power."

We can always turn to the leftist news sources to blame anyone and anything but their love-child Obama. Slate, mentioned above, alluded to a decline in US power. Time, blames Bush, of course ("Obama, Bush and America's Limits"). NPR revealed the decline in US power, correctly pointing to such problems as the $600 billion pumping scheme - roundly decried at the G20 Summit - yet ignoring Obama's and Congress' failed economic policy behind the scheme.

Reasonable people, as the last election demonstrated, can and do understand that the policies of the current president and, importantly, of the now lame-duck Congress. These policies are indeed to blame for America's loss of world power. For example, how much can we reasonably borrow from other countries, including a lion's share from China, and still expect that, say China, will have any respect for us in the morning?

Which brings us back to the original question. What was the point of Obama's taxpayer-paid expensive trip to Asia? Taking a look at Gallup Poll's presidential job approval rating, I note that Obama's approval rating jumped five points. Apparently Americans like Obama a lot better when he's not around. Maybe he should get out more often?