WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO OBAMA’S ‘WELL OILED MACHINE?’
The pages of punditdom are full today of breathless questions about the Obama White House. Is Obama an incompetent empty suit as the right was charging all those months? What happened to the candidate who so confidently talked of hope and change, igniting a grass roots political effort this nation has never seen? Is the Obama Administration already “in trouble” - whatever that means?
Rule Number 1 for success as a serious commentator on politics is never get too far ahead of the pack. In this respect, it appears that many of my fellow bloggers - especially on the right side of the sphere - are sipping some heavy duty koolade. A couple of missteps by the newbies at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and we’re already talking about an “Epic Fail” for the Obama presidency? Let’s hope not. If Obama “fails” it will mean this nation will go into an economic tailspin the likes of which haven’t been seen since Clark Gable was the bees knees and Al Jolsen could wear blackface and sing about his “Mammy.”
Actually, I am exaggerating a bit. But there is no doubt the subtext of many analyses is that Obama is not inspiring much confidence so far and that in some areas - personnel selection, Congressional relations, and foreign policy - he has shown a troubling lack of basic competence. In vetting his cabinet, controlling the debate on his stimulus bill, and moving to assure the rest of the world, Obama has stumbled, froze, and failed to engender confidence in his leadership overseas.
It must be pointed out that there is nothing new in this, that a new president and his people have to get the kinks out of their operation as they power up. Talk of “hitting the ground running” is all well and good but, as Theodore H. White pointed out in his brilliant Making of a President series, all Administrations eventually face a period as Obama and his people have faced the last 72 hours. That is, the “well oiled machine” of the campaign runs smack into the reality of governing a nation. New faces and personalities with new responsibilities take time to mesh. This is made especially obvious in their Congressional outreach operation and the seemingly incomprehensible surrender of the process on the stimulus bill to Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. The Democrats loaded up what is essentially an infrastructure and jobs bill with so much outrageous pork having nothing whatsoever to do with stimulating anything (except perhaps the saliva glands of Democratic constituencies) that Republicans in the House were able to safely band together and reject it. Support for that monstrosity in its current incarnation is dropping like a stone, a fact not lost on Senate Republicans or Democrats.
The fact that so many items have already been dropped from the measure shows that the White House simply didn’t think this thing through very thoroughly. Allowing liberal Democrats to lard up the bill with goodies for teachers, unions, feminists, and other loyalists and then using the economic crisis to try and ram it down the throats of the country has been exposed and it doesn’t make the Administration look very good. The Senate could pull Obama’s chestnuts out of the fire and radically alter the package, reducing its cost substantially while doing a better job of targeting tax cuts and infrastructure improvements where it will do the most good. If that occurs, the Administration would do well not to fight it but rather embrace the alterations in the Senate and then try and convince Pelosi and House Democrats to go along with the changes.
At least the stimulus bill is salvageable. But what about the rash of personnel problems being experienced by the Obama White House? Two cabinet nominees have already withdrawn with another presidential appointee Nancy Killefer also walking the plank. That doesn’t include a tax dodging Treasury Secretary and an Attorney General who has proven adept at playing politics at the Justice Department when it suits the goals of the man in the Oval Office. (See Marc Rich and Puerto Rican terrorists.) There has also been a rash of appointments where the president has gone back on his promise not to hire lobbyists for his administration. Politico counts 12 former lobbyists so far which gives a whole new meaning to “Hope and Change” - as in, “I hope no one will notice what a hypocrite I am by hiring all these lobbyists who won’t change much of anything.”
Amazingly, the only appointee who has had relatively smooth sailing so far is - Hillary Clinton? But don’t worry. With Bill Clinton on the loose, something is bound to pop up to embarrass everyone. The smart money is on women trouble but I’d lay odds that it will be a money issue that explodes in Obama’s face.
Perhaps even more troubling than the withdrawals and the reasons for them is the fact that the Obama people apparently knew of both Geithner and Daschle’s tax problems before announcing their names. This wasn’t a matter of bad vetting, just a tone deaf approach to the process. How could they possibly think that no one would care that the Treasury and HHS Secretaries are tax scofflaws.
And while we’re on the subject of insensitivity, the Administration’s response to the suffering of people in the Midwest as a result of the winter storm may not have reached the Katrina level of “Heckuva job, Brownie” but has certainly not been Obama’s finest hour. His aide David Axelrod brags about how warm the Oval Office is while people are shivering in unheated homes? The president dines on exotic steak while some can’t get out of their driveways to go to the grocery store? He has chosen to remain virtually silent on the tragedy, quite rightly fearing comparisons with Katrina. Meanwhile, a week after the storm winds stopped, there are still tens of thousands without power in Kentucky alone. The National Guard has just now made it to Western Kentucky and officials are going door to door to hand out welfare checks.
My ironic post on the storm’s aftermath and the failure of FEMA to alleviate suffering in a timely manner scooted over the head of most lefties without even musing their hair. The feds are not to blame for this suffering, Mother Nature is. But I found the schadenfreude irresistable in that it was the left who chose to politicize natural disasters and Obama will almost certainly have his own “Katrina moment” eventually.
And Obama’s initial steps into the foreign policy arena have not been without a slip or two. His interview with Al-Arabiya TV - the first interview he granted following his inauguration - was chock full of moral equivalence and a curious detatchment about Iran’s ambitions, undercutting his own sanctions policy at the UN in the process.
But the reported rift between Obama and the military brass may prove most damaging in the long run. Obama cannot simply say “I won” to Petreaus and the Chiefs - especially since he promised to listen to the commanders before committing to a hard timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. Well, he apparently thinks it better that he keep a campaign promise to the anti-war crowd than follow the advice of his generals. This is his prerogative, of course. And it may end up being a tempest in a teapot. But the potential for trouble between Obama and the military when we have a war to win yet in Afghanistan does not bode well for the future.
But given all these pratfalls and miscalculations, Obama is still in good shape with the people who elected him. They are much more willing to stick with him than right wing pundits and mainstream media critics who seek to create a little news by trying to rain on the president’s honeymoon. He still has plenty of time to right the ship. And admitting mistakes is a good first step.
But if the president continues to stumble over the next few weeks, then he can expect the tenor of the criticism directed against him to change. America doesn’t have time to break in a new president. Fairly, or unfairly, Obama will not have the luxury of a long, leisurely shake down cruise for his Administration. He has already lost a significant amount of goodwill with his faux pas. Given the enormous challenges we face, it would behoove the new Administration to get its act together sooner rather than later.
UPDATE
As usual, Ed Morrissey and I are on something of the same wavelength this morning.
[...] Rick Moran agrees — this isn’t fatal to the Obama presidency (yet), but it’s a train wreck of a [...]
Pingback by Hot Air » Blog Archive » So much for the Greatest Transition EvahTM — 2/4/2009 @ 8:09 am
We couldn’t write a more fitting script.
After an exhausting two weeks in office, Obama flees problems at home by playing teacher at a local school, where the 2nd graders ask hard hitting questions like “what is your favorite superhero?”
He chooses to read “The Moon Over Star”, not realizing the symbolism (if he hands Michelle a single Red Rose on Valentine’s Day, we’re screwed).
Barack is simply proving what we worried about in the first place. His tendency to vote “present” - to want to hide behind others when the going gets tough. He soars when he preaches though.
Not to worry. If things fall apart, we’ll need a Leader for the New World Order. I’m sure he’ll be glad to step in. Nobody will question someone making pronouncements while the doves are being released at his feet.
Comment by sara in va — 2/4/2009 @ 8:27 am
It is starting to get even to the news, though some are still carrying the bucket.
On Regis this morning Katie Curric was withering in trying to explain how the most “smartiest” man alive was making so many mistakes. The excuses were flying fast and furious but finally she had nothing and ended with:
“He is so calm and cool. So confident” Bahahahahaha!
Comment by LogicalUS — 2/4/2009 @ 9:13 am
Bush 43 had one major problem with his transition team, and that was Linda Chavez’s nanny kerfuffle, which was a holdover from the Clinton transition problems with their AG selections.
But the Bush team had to vet their nominees with far more scrutiny than Obama did, because they knew the big media outlets weren’t going to shirk their duties to investigate any conflict-of-interest, tax or any other problems. Having gone pretty much for the past 24 months with only minor criticism either from the few conservative reporters or from those backing Hillary in the primaries, the Obama team was tone-deaf to how nominating tax evaders would look at a time when the government is handing out tax $$$ like free Lotto tickets.
Comment by John — 2/4/2009 @ 9:17 am
Rick - I think Obama’s tone deafness to the public’s reaction to nominees with tax issues stems from his Chicago roots. In Chicago, the failure to file returns for several years has not been a barrier to seeking public office and tax cheating is almost a way of life in some communities. It certainly has not carried the scarlet T that Obama is seeing now on the national stage and exposes him as the inexperienced leader we expected.
Comment by daleyrocks — 2/4/2009 @ 9:53 am
Imagine how much even worse the Obamans would be doing if the outgoing Bush administration had not bent over backwards to smooth the Transition. By all accounts, to reasssure and safeguard the country, 43’s administration cooperated with 44’s to an extent unparalled in American history, at least with transferring between one party and the other.
Left to their own devices, the Obama Administration are like teenagers teaching themselves how to drive a stick shift, grinding the gear box while failing to get out of Park.
Comment by Chris — 2/4/2009 @ 9:58 am
The Democrats are doing what they said they would do, spend like crazy. Republicans have no credibility on spending, their claims that they want “smaller more efficient government “ are only valid when they are the minority party. Win an election and Republicans will quickly rediscover the earmark. We will see if Obama learns from his mistakes, but at least admitting them is a first step that most politicians are not willing to take. The real test of his administration will be the review of government programs for worth and efficiency. When the programs are put on the chopping block the special interest groups will howl, we will see if he wins or they win that political battle.
Comment by grognard — 2/4/2009 @ 10:17 am
Rick, I think you failed to touch on one thing; ego.
Like all the Hollywood elite who are telling us how we should all drive a Prius, while they jet around in their private planes, Obama believed the hype that the media put out about our “rock star” president. He really believes that no matter what mistakes he makes, all will be forgiven or ignored. What other president ever told a news anchor “People think I’m cool”? He obviously thought that the millions who came out to adore him in Berlin would be enough to appease the Canadians when he announced his protectionism policies.
But it will become more and more apparant that Obama is out of his league. He was a marketing campaign designed by David Axelrod, with a brilliant young speech writer and now we are finding out that the product that we thought was the answer to all of humanity’s problems is really not very good for us.
If Obama, and his policies fail, will the United States fail? Nope. Not unless Nazi Pelosi and Harry (Real Estate) Reid manage to shove it’s current goal of socializing our nation down our throats. And at that point, many states will pump new life into Jefferson’s Kentucky Resolution and we will see states refusing to accept the unconstitutional actions of the federal government.
Like all celebrities whose egos have been pumped by adoring fans, he has started to believe his own reviews. But the media is a fickle mistress, and they will serve themselves first, and when dissention creates headlines, they will dump on him like Charlie Chaplin.
Comment by retire05 — 2/4/2009 @ 11:02 am
retire05
In the past I may have applauded and pumped my fist when someone mentioned secession, or the Kentucky Resolution.
Now that we know Obama is as dangerously naive as we feared, that his only responses are to employ old socialist methods (executive pay caps, etc.) and feel-good photo ops, I’m less likely to be giddy over talk about such things.
Can you imagine our enemies licking their chops for something like that? We would be toast. Over in a flash, bang.
Comment by sara in va — 2/4/2009 @ 11:27 am
Please knock it off about how you are all so “frightened” of Obama and how “dangerously naive” he is. Anyone who has an issue with executive pay caps for thieving, lying bankers who steal my tax dollars should go back to China where they belong.
Speaking of China, anyone who thinks it’s OK for the government to dictate to business how much to pay their employees would feel perfectly at home either there or Cuba.
Personally, I prefer Cuba - less crowded plus its warmer.
And while we’re at it, let’s ask government to tell your company how much to pay YOU. Judging by that last comment, I doubt whether you’re worth as much as you think.
ed.
Comment by Jindal111 — 2/4/2009 @ 11:59 am
sara, how so?
Do you really think that the original thirteen colonies thought of themselves as one unit when fighting the British? They didn’t think of themselves as one unit after the Declaration of Independence was written. That is why the Constitution is very clear about the authority given to the federal government over the states.
Do you think if the Repubublic of Texas was invaded by a foreign entity, that Louisiana or Oklahoma would not jump in, knowing that as soon as Texas fell, they would be next?
I am not saying that any state should withdraw from the Union. But if enough states refused to accept the unconstituional power placed over them by the federal government, the intention of the Constitution would revert back to it’s original purpose.
Each state has it’s own Constitution. The reason being is that the federal government has limited power, and the state’s constitutions deal with the powers of the state.
Seperate but equal. Look at history; the term used to be “the United States ARE” not the “United States IS”.
We have gotten so far from the Constitution it’s not even funny. It is time we go back to it.
Comment by retire05 — 2/4/2009 @ 12:04 pm
Does this apply to banks that accept federal bailout money? I would like to have seen congress attach at least a few strings to the money they handed out.
The incentive structure for the banking industry is one of the most destructive forces to free market capitalism that the world has ever seen.
I have no problem with oversight of how that bail out money is spent. But decisions on how to spend it should be made by the company.
ed.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 2/4/2009 @ 12:47 pm
If true, the reported riff between the President and the Pentagon is a classic rookie error. Sometimes events obviate the need for doing something.
There will be a referendum held in Iraq by July 31st that will determine the status of our forces. Either way it goes he gets cover. If they say “see ya” he has to have all the forces out of Iraq in 16 months any way. If they say “not so fast” then he can claim he’s following the mandate of the Iraqi people and our agreements with them. Even in that case the majority of the forces can be pulled in the subsequent 16 months.
Besides which, Iraq is way below the radar for most folks during the current economic mess.
Comment by Allen — 2/4/2009 @ 1:10 pm
I’m sorry. I don’t follow. These sentences seem to be exact opposites. What am I missing?
What I want is for congress to say: “Hey banks, if you want this taxpayer bailout money, you can have it. But, it cannot be used for, say, executive bonuses.”
It seems like you’re favoring the no strings attached approach, whereas I’m liking the many strings attached approach.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 2/4/2009 @ 1:35 pm
Perhaps Obama would like to extend his “limitation” policy for bank managers and CEOs that accepted tax payer funds even farther. Perhaps we should also require all those who accept tax payer funds for their livelyhood to be just as responsible to account for those funds. Anyone who lives in public housing (paid for by the taxpayer) has to prove they keep the place clean; anyone who accepts food stamps must prove they buy only healthy foods and are not increasing the sales for Frito-Lay; anyone who receives benefits for dependent children must prove that all that money goes to support the children. If it is discovered that anyone on the public dole purchases a big screen TV, they lose their benefits. If they spend the cash payments on cigarettes, beer, or lottery tickets, they lose their benefits.
How far should we take this. Placing responsibility on one segment of the populace and not another segment of the populace, is class warfare.
And where is FEMA in Kentucky? Some counties, (who all voted McCain like Lyons and Hopkins) have still not seen any FEMA help over a week later.
Comment by retire05 — 2/4/2009 @ 1:38 pm
It’s interesting that you make it seem like falling into the public safety net is like a free ride dream come true. Granted, some people abuse the system any way they can, but most do not. There are rules for what people must do in order to benefit. People who have to deal with this, for the most part, do everything they can to avoid it. They also do everything they can to get back on their feet.
You think placing strings on corporate bailout money is class warfare? Psh. Try letting the middle class continue shrinking. That’ll kick off some real class warfare.
Comment by Chuck Tucson — 2/4/2009 @ 2:16 pm
I disagree strongly that the so-called stimulus bill is “salvageable” in that it can be shaped into legislation that actually will do what it was purported to accomplish, which is create jobs. The package can be passed if all Democrats hang tight, but many of them will bolt if enough Republicans don’t jump on this sinking ship. The one thing Democrats really watch, polls, has turned on them.
As a matter of fact, I would contend this pork-laden monstrosity is a much worse problem for Obama than tax cheat-appointees. There is no way Obama will not offend a great many people with this package. If he strips out the 50 percent or so that is unabashed pork, the left and many Democrats will turn on him. If Obama leaves that shit in there, he will lose the greater publc.
Tom Daschle’s latest scumbaggery will be forgotten in 2010. A wasted trillion dollars will not be.
I will wait to see how the dance with the military plays out before I put that on the same plane or even above the stimulus fiasco. You may be right here but it is too early to tell. What isn’t too early to tell is that the first piece of shit legislation Obama backed also was the first piece of legislation he backed, and it is a major disaster.
Comment by jackson1234 — 2/4/2009 @ 2:18 pm
Regarding pay caps. Obama just picked out $500K. What if it were $300K,$100K? What does this figure represent, in his world? Clearly, it wouldn’t be enough for Tom Daschle to live on. I have a problem with the government setting any pay caps on private businesses. But, I guess, the point is, they no longer are.
Also, retire05. I almost totally agree with what you say, except for the fact that (at least to my slim knowledge) Lousiana doesn’t have its own missile defense system pointing at Iran. It does have good beignets though. We could toss those at terrorists.
Comment by sara in va — 2/4/2009 @ 2:19 pm
I think you are underestimating how potentially damaging all of this is to Obama. He ran as the Messiah, of hope an change, of shaking up Washington and bringing ethics back. Now, not just one, two, or even three, but four appointees are now tainted.
This is obviously anecdotal, but working in one of the bluest of blue states, Rhode Island, I have been hearing people all day talk about how disappointed they are with the Obama administration. The idea of Washington elites not paying their taxes and getting away with it, along with a tax cheat running the IRS, resonates with people, even many who voted for HopeChange. The stimulus bill continues to plummit in popularity, and as you mentioned, the tension with the joint chiefs is troubling.
Just what gives us the impression that Obama will succeed? The Presidency is a difficult job, and Obama has never been successful at running anything. While I agree that we are not seeing the wholesale collapse of the Obama administration, the latest trends should show some fall in his popular support in the near future.
Comment by Sal — 2/4/2009 @ 2:28 pm
I can’t believe I agree with Chuck (first time for everything). I don’t get the distinction between “oversight” of how the bailout money is spent, and decisions about how it is spent. Oversight without authority is not oversight (unless I misunderstand the term). Oversight with authority equals decision making (or at minimum, influence on decision making).
Of course, I disagree with the bailout in general, but now that they are standing with their hands out, they need to be accountable to me (and you). If they pay their own way, let the stock holders decide if it’s too much.
Comment by lionheart — 2/4/2009 @ 2:53 pm
why is it that we always hear “lets hope Obama doesnt fail because then the country & economy will go into a tailspin?”
…can someone please show me the proof to such outlandish and hyperbolic comments? How has the president come by such power?
…the USA is not embodied in the office of the president, the legislative or judicial branches. We do not pledge allegiance to any man or woman but to the USA. The Spirit of the USA is housed in the spirit of its people.
…and frankly the people are more self-reliant, more compitent more moral and intelligent, more full of common sense, then any government official. They are so much more than anyone is giving them credit for.
we can, we have and we will survive even if Obama becomes an incompetent and irrelevant president. The country is so much more than the President. lets be real. personally I believe, i do not hope, but i do believe, Obama will go down as one of the worst prez’s ever. He will be one of the worst because he was created by a left-wing corrupt political machine that is held together by special interest groups, by ideologues and by a proganda-producing press. Reality hasnt set in yet that what these left-wing folks have inhereited is beyone their intellectual, moral, and emotional capabilities.
enjoy the ride folks and thank the Lord for the little guys & gals who built this country, made it great, continue to cherish & protect it AND will keep it secure for future generations & the world to enjoy. The prez simply gets the keys to the kingdom for 4-8 yrs and then turns them back in for someone else.
It is not the prez who will save this country for future generations but its citizens. JUST LIKE IN KY WHERE THE FEDS ARE A NO-SHOW AND ITS UP TO LOCALS TO SAVE THEMSELVES. I REST MY CASE.
cheers
Comment by lu-ee — 2/4/2009 @ 3:12 pm
The only “well-oiled machine” was the campaign. Obama’s actual governance has degenerated into a joke. Obama’s woeful inexperience had led him to trust D.C. grandees who drip oil to administer trillions and left-wing loons like Pelosi to draft the legislation to spend it. This isn’t the trainwreck. It’s only the sound of the train jumping the tracks. The actual crash will be much uglier.
Comment by obamathered — 2/4/2009 @ 5:18 pm
lu-ee #21
Darling, obviously you have never read Atlas Shrugged. If you had, you would know that if “they” want to take it down, it will come down. Stubbornly, vindictively, selfishly (like always), just to prove a point.
Your optimism and self-reliance will serve you well if it happens. Do you have your seeds handy?
Comment by sara in va — 2/4/2009 @ 5:29 pm
Obama’s woeful inexperience…
I can’t imagine anyone I admire competently administering this country if they began with as little experience as Obama. Even if you’re the greatest athlete in the world, you don’t pick up a tennis racket for the first time and play at Wimbleton. America is going to get it’s ass kicked for the next four years.
Comment by John E. Howard — 2/4/2009 @ 6:14 pm
> If Obama “fails” it will mean this nation will go into an economic tailspin …
And if he succeeds I suppose we can look forward to “Great Depression II - This Time, It’s Personal”.
Comment by Arthur — 2/4/2009 @ 9:01 pm
Rick said, “Well, he [Obama] apparently thinks it better that he keep a campaign promise to the anti-war crowd than follow the advice of his generals [on Iraq withdrawal].”
Rick do you have amnesia? What was the name of the guy who signed that ’status of forces agreement’ or SOFA with Iraq on December 14, 2008?
That agreement has more to say about what American troops can and can’t do in Iraq than the American ‘military brass’. Anyone who reads the SOFA will find it says something about the withdrawal of American forces from Iraq.
The SOFA establishes that U.S. combat forces will withdraw from Iraqi cities by June 30, 2009, and all U.S. forces will be completely out of Iraq by December 31, 2011, subject to possible further negotiations.
Although Obama does not respect Bush, perhaps Obama believes a U.S. President should honor the international security pacts signed by his predecessor.
By following the SOFA, Obama would be following the wishes of a pact negotiated and signed by Bush and his administration.
What could be more conservative than obeying previously signed agreements by a democratically elected President?
What could show more disregard for conservative principles than ignoring the agreements of a previously democratically elected President and instead doing what unelected generals want.
To summarize: President Bush has already committed the U.S. to a hard timetable for withdrawal from Iraq. That date is December 31st, 2011.
Comment by bsjones — 2/5/2009 @ 3:10 am
Anybody interested in reading the SOFA in my other post can find it here:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/iraq/story/56116.html
Comment by bsjones — 2/5/2009 @ 3:23 am
dear sara in va,
….sorry but I dont believe in conspiracies that can take down our government. And when it goes down what does that accomplish?
You cynically hint at seeds because we wont have food, well then the entire world wont have food. no one would have food, even those who “take it down.” what is the point with that? if there was a conspiracy it would always seek self-preservation.
…thru hard work of americans and the income they generate, there are still many ways to be successful as well as honest, even in the supposed worst of times.
…as we speak there is positive news as much as negative (many companies are experiencing increased profits from the 4th quarter of the year before, from leggo to visa, from 30 to at least 50% increase over…)
….but the liberal media is only reporting the bad so that the socialist stimulis package gets passed on fear of some make-believe BS depression. My father grew up during the depression & he says this isnt even close.
This time next year, things will be no better or worse for me or many folks I know. The only thing different is who will be crying wolf or the sky is falling. last year it was paulson & pelosi, now its obama and pelosi, next year it could be santa claus & rudolph the red-nose senator…
really pathetic at who can become a “national leader” these days…best sitcom comedy ever.
cheers
Comment by lu-ee — 2/5/2009 @ 7:38 am