At Politico Alexander Burns and John Harris make the following observation:
For five years, this president has been making the case that a growing and activist government has good intentions and can carry these intentions out with competence. Conservatives have warned that government is dangerous, and even good intentions get bungled in the execution. In different ways, the IRS uproar, the Justice Department leak investigations, the Benghazi tragedy and the misleading attempts to explain it, and the growing problems with implementation of health care reform all bolster the conservative worldview.
To stain reputations, presidential controversies usually need some kind of powerful connection to the style and values of the person occupying the Oval Office. Watergate was not a random scandal — it flowed directly from President Richard M. Nixon’s paranoia and contempt for law. No one who knew Bill Clinton in the decades before he became president would have been surprised that his second-term scandal involved weaknesses of the flesh. Under George W. Bush, the misjudgments at the outset of the Iraq War reflected an instinct for certitude and a disdain for dissenting views that started at the top.
In Obama’s case, the narrative emerging from this tumultuous week goes something like this: None of these messes would have happened under a president less obsessed with politics, less insulated within his own White House and less trusting of government as an institution.
Note how that dovetails with the “undercutting your own message” point I made a few days ago.
It might not be clear from what I’ve written but I honestly want the president to succeed. I want that to happen by his doing things that succeed rather than for the things that he does to succeed because he does them (if you understand the distinction I’m trying to make). The emergence of the theme of a president who wants to give broad discretionary powers to the federal government and then free them from oversight, hoping for the best is not a move in the right direction.
I think that’s fair. As any decent writer will tell you, character drives the narrative. Obama is a distant, hands-off manager who really does not seem to like to engage with humans. He either learns from this, starts firing people and kicking ass, or he continues to live his self-protective, introvert lifestyle. I’d bet on the second. He’s five years in, feels he has nothing left to prove, happily married, into his kids, already thinking about where to put the Presidential Library. Of course I identify with the character type.
I want that to happen by his doing things that succeed rather than for the things that he does to succeed because he does them
In order for that to happen some ideology has to be sliced away, as Obama’s mode of operation, his political compass is entirely fed by a Keynesian, large government POV. Much like his teleprompter guides the words coming out of his mouth, so is his leadership sparked and directed by his own partisan ideas, and those of a small coterie of like-minded people keeping counsel with him in the WH bubble. Where has there been a moment where Obama stood back and retooled a decision? Even the ACA, which is floundering badly, has been met with a ‘full steam ahead’ attitude. It’s like he is far more interested in winning arguments and elections than he is in the roll-up-your-sleeves, sometimes tedious tasks of being POTUS.
Also, Obama has personality traits which are not open to versatility or change from within himself (except for the evolving social ones, which were really only submerged). Such traits are important conduits to our behavior, and contribute to how we are perceived by others. In Obama’s case he is thin-skinned, prickly, a loner among his Congressional colleagues, has been called a narcissist, doesn’t like to negotiate with the opposition party, and rarely, if ever, concedes that he was ‘wrong’ about something — either blaming others or claiming lack of knowledge. This deflection habit of his has even leaked into comedy parodies showing his accountability as being “The buck stops over there,” versus the well-known version on Truman’s desk of “The buck stops here.”
Lately, you can add to this list in saying he seems to put himself out of the information loop, therefore not seeing himself as culpable for anything negative happening on his watch. Benghazi, AP and IRS scandals are the latest mess-ups he had nothing to do with. I mean, saying the first time he heard about the IRS irregularities was on the news, last Friday! Come on…. Now, people are even questioning who is running this country! Valerie Jarrett, maybe?
He either learns from this, starts firing people and kicking ass, or he continues to live his self-protective, introvert lifestyle.
So far Obama’s lessons have revolved around winning versus losing. In Illinois, where he lost his first election, he learned what needed to be done to win — slime your opponents. He did that in every consecutive election after that — from being a state senator, to a senator in the US Congress (both races were achieved by exposing marital problems of his opponents), to POTUS, where he primarily sliced and diced his opponent’s VP, to the 2012 run, where he and his team were intent on ‘killing’ Romney before he even got his party’s nomination. Now there are even extensions of his willingness to win the last election at any cost, in some of the IRS revelations and even the Benghazi obfuscations (some people term as “lies,” including the WaPo recently).
Oh yes, what is Obama busily doing now — more fundraisers for the 2014 midterms. As I understand it he had 3 last Monday. And, of course we all know what captured his attention on 9/12/12 — a Las Vegas fundraiser took precedence over that unimportant flameout in Libya!
Jan:
All candidates are about winning. Your candidates and mine. Are you seriously going to maintain that Romney didn’t slime everyone he came up against from Newt Gingrich to Santorum? Please. That doesn’t pass the laugh test. And Romney was in turn slimed by his fellow Republicans. Show me a single Obama attack that hadn’t already been done by one of Romney’s primary opponents.
So spare me the moral posturing.
@jan
… rarely, if ever, concedes that he was ‘wrong’ about something …
This was bullsh*t when it was done to President Bush, and it is bullsh*t when it is done to President Obama. The President is not required to submit a list of his perceived failures.
It’s getting worse. Now Holder is telling Congress he didn’t authorize the AP stuff, and isn’t even 100% certain who did, but he’s pretty sure it was a deputy AG acting in his stead. A little later he got a note that confirmed that. How can he go before Congress without knowing for certain who authorized this? This should take at most a few phone called to verify, and then a few more minutes to get it in writing.
Okay, so Obama says he has nothing to do with what goes on at Justice. And now the AG is saying he doesn’t have anything to do with what goes on at Justice either, and does so under oath before Congress. Holder’s resignation should be on the President’s desk right now.
Michael,
There are degrees of sliming, and when it goes too far it ultimately obscures the issues, making it more difficult for people to fathom what the candidate’s real stances are.
Romney did receive due criticism for playing rough in the R primary, against his opponents. However, IMO, Obama went much further in the GE against Romney, where around 85% of his ad campaign was considered negative, in comparison to a much smaller percentage of Romney’s ads being negative.
Basically, Romney tried to stay on topic, dealing with the economy and jobs, while Obama attacked the man, defining Romney in unlikable terms, having little to do with the crux of the problems at hand — being the economy and jobs.
Yes, winning is what it’s all about in politics. I just happen to not like all the dirt, and Obama threw much more of it than Romney did.
No one is talking about ‘submitting a list.’ But, if a president only touts his supposed successes, but refuses to be accountable for failures in his administration than it becomes a rose-colored glasses kind of administration, breeding confusion and distrust — something we are experiencing today with all these emerging scandals.
BTW, I think that was one of the described failures of Bush, was that his reticence to admit his mistakes, and was roundly criticized for that, by both the left and right. Interestingly, he and Obama have shared not only similar policy implementations, but also the traits of being thin-skinned and prickly — something that has not been viewed as a plus during their time in office, nor served the aftertaste of Bush’s legacy well. I think Obama may be headed for the same poison pill of remembrance by the people, after his 2nd term is finished.
Okay, so Obama says he has nothing to do with what goes on at Justice. And now the AG is saying he doesn’t have anything to do with what goes on at Justice either, and does so under oath before Congress. Holder’s resignation should be on the President’s desk right now.
In 2007, when Obama was a Senator he criticized the then Bush AG, Alberto Gonzales for “conceiving his role as the President’s attorney instead of the people’s attorney.”
I think Eric Holder is dancing the same dance with the now President Obama. Ah, the deja vu of administrations, whether they are R or D!
@jan
As long as you apply the “admitting mistakes” policy equally, I can tolerate consistency, but you need to include Mitt Romney. Also, the “I try too hard” mistake does not count.
… by both the left and right …
As I recall, the right were lapdogs for President Bush. After the 2006 elections, Rush Limbaugh admitted he was “carrying water for the Republicans,” and he was not the only one. Somehow by 2007, he was a waterboy once again. The right began criticizing President Bush after Senator McCain lost in 2008.
As long as you apply the “admitting mistakes†policy equally, I can tolerate consistency, but you need to include Mitt Romney.
I was mainly discussing the two POTUS’s, not any unsuccessful candidates for the presidency.
As I recall, the right were lapdogs for President Bush. After the 2006 elections, Rush Limbaugh admitted he was “carrying water for the Republicans,†and he was not the only one. Somehow by 2007, he was a waterboy once again. The right began criticizing President Bush after Senator McCain lost in 2008.
Rush Limbaugh comes up as the face of the republican party when people want to deride it. However, keep in mind, he like all the other right-of-center talk show hosts, are just that, talk show hosts, and not an elected representative of the people.
As far as the right criticizing Bush, they did it plenty before 2008, except for an ideological faction who refused to see any wrong in his presidency. The same holds true for Obama today, in that no matter what he does or says, there is a hard core group who will never budge, and continue to blame republicans, or anyone else, in order to protect Obama, as well as their prideful investment of backing this man.
jan
Hold your ground. I was very critical of Bush for his spending posture on this very site and OTB. It really, truly is the left that almost overwhealmingly can’t criticize “their guys.”
And oh by the way. I was running an errand the other day and turned on Limbaugh and heard him excoriating the Republicans.
Think you will hear that out of Ed Schultz?
When monkeys fly out of my……..
Obama – Axelrod probably in truth – got divorce records opened.
Oh, and two words: Emil Jones.
Do your homework.
I was very critical of Bush for his spending posture on this very site and OTB. It really, truly is the left that almost overwhealmingly can’t criticize “their guys.
Drew, I was also critical of Bush, throughout his presidency — his spending, prescription drug plan, and especially the fool he sent over as the Administrator of the Coalition Provisional Authority of Iraq, Paul Bremer.
However, that was all before I begin posting here and at OTB, and also when I was a democrat. I became an independent late last year. Of course when I was a dem, I was nevertheless run over the coals at OTB for being a shill or some right-winger. I must say that dems are far more shrill, enjoying pinning people's heads to the wall whenever there is a peep of a different POV being uttered. Consequently, I've really lost tons of respect for this party in the last year.
I don't listen to Limbaugh. He's too bombastic for me in both his style and hyper partisanship. IMO, he is the partisan opposite of Ed Schultz, except smarter. One of my favorite guys, though, is Michael Medved, as he combines lots of stats and history in his commentary.
@jan
If you do not like Rush Limbaugh, let me know the name of one the people on the right complaining. Nobody was ready to dump President Bush on because he was a Democrat masquerading as a Republican. Somebody pulled the lever for him.
I am willing to be corrected. As I recall, Republicans were cheering ALL Republicans going into the 2006 elections, but after they were handed their a**es, there was a three month period when Republicans were only 50% behind President Bush.
In addition, the agenda the right found so appalling was approved by the Republican Congress. Many of these folks are still in office, and I have heard no calls for them to be replaced.
“Holding one’s nose while pulling the lever” is an endorsement of that candidate. If the right were so outraged at President Bush, he would not have been re-elected.
Tasty,
I think we are talking past each other….
Nobody was ready to dump President Bush on because he was a Democrat masquerading as a Republican. Somebody pulled the lever for him.
I never said people wanted to dump Bush, only that there was massive disappointment and disapproval of him during his 2nd term. Look at his numbers — even among republicans! Remember “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” coined because of the rabid disliked voiced for him from the majority of the public?
As I recall, Republicans were cheering ALL Republicans going into the 2006 elections,
Midterms are more about gains and losses in Congress, and less to do with the President. If a president has unpopular poll numbers then Congressional candidates do a sideways slide away from him.
In addition, the agenda the right found so appalling was approved by the Republican Congress. Many of these folks are still in office, and I have heard no calls for them to be replaced.
What’s your point? Charles Rangel is still in office, as is Maxine Waters and a host of other sleazy people. Corruption, ineptness is no deterrent to holding office, either on the left or right. Weiner is even contemplating running for NY mayor! I wish the thresholds were higher to hold on to these political positions. But, they are not, because the voting public seems to forgive and forget misdeeds, especially when that person is from their own party affiliation.
If the right were so outraged at President Bush, he would not have been re-elected.
If the left had candidates other than the bumbling Gore or the obnoxious Kerry, there would have been a better chance of that. Of course the left says the same thing about Romney, as to why Obama got reelected too.
Did any Republicans in the primary accuse Romney of being a felon and claim he should be thrown in jail, as did Obama campaign staffers last year? Did any of the Republicans make a big deal of the fact that Romney’s great-whatever-grandfather was a polygamist, and therefore that Romney shouldn’t be President? (The Dems that did that of course didn’t mention that Barry O’s daddy was a polygamist.) Did any of the Republican candidates in the primary say that Romney was too rich to be President? Did they make the case that Romney wasn’t rich ENOUGH to be President? (That was some proxy argument from some Obama ass-kisser late in the GE cycle, I forget who.)
Did any of the Republican primary challengers complain that not only was Romney not paying enough in taxes, but that he was giving away too much by way of charity? (I heard that a lot last year. I still don’t get that.)
Of course not. What can you expect of the wogs?
Did any of the Republican primary challengers complain that not only was Romney not paying enough in taxes, but that he was giving away too much by way of charity? (I heard that a lot last year. I still don’t get that.)
Ragging on republicans is blood sport for the left. And, if you call them on it, they say such push back amounts to whining. Dems go on to say that republicans are far more ‘hateful’ than dems…and, then all you have to do is go over to OTB and see how respectful (not!) the dialogue is over there towards republicans. It’s enough to make your head spin by all the spin and delusion that is passed back and forth among the diehards over there.
@jan
… Remember “Bush Derangement Syndrome,†coined because of the rabid disliked voiced for him from the majority of the public?
I remember it quite well. I also remember “Clinton Derangement Syndrome†and “Reagan Derangement Syndromeâ€. In an effort to politically damage the man, the office is damaged. With President Bush, it moved into foreign policy, and in an effort to bring down President Bush, I think there was a lot of aid and comfort given to US enemies.
The Democrats are not claiming massive disappointment and disapproval of their politicians or legislation. On this blog, our friends on the left do have some complaints, but again, they are willing to accept the sh*t their politicians are shoveling. How many of them concede that the PPACA is a turd (it is not going to do what it is supposed to do, and it may make things worse), but it is the tastiest treat ever cooked up.
Of course not. What can you expect of the wogs?
Saw a story in the NYT the other day. It was about an American Indian* woman who had gotten her tribe to legalize SSM. The woman in question was both fairer than my wife and blonder. (My wife has a heavy Norwegian component to her make-up, blended with a mix of English and French – she is very fair, though not all that blonde now that she doesn’t work in the sun eight hours a day.)
The story included a picture of two men getting married in front of an official from another tribe that had legalized SSM. All three of the men looked less ethnic than Archie Bunker’s friends. (No idea if the third man was supposedly Amer-Indian or not, but the tribal official and one of the husbands were supposedly Amer-Indian.)
They apparently couldn’t find anyone that could actually play an Indian in a Western (at least some of whom weren’t Indian at all), but lots of people that could have played Puritan parts in The Scarlet Letter.
Elizabeth Warren was another famous “Indian” of recent years, at least until she wasn’t.
There is nothing white people like more than non-white white people. 1/16th Cherokee? Awesome! 1/32 Chippewa? Nice! Half-Kenyan, raised as a white/Indonesian hybrid, faking the Black Southern dialect? Let’s elect you President!
* Native American? One term is as bad as another, if you’re talking about applying foreign labels to the indigenous tribes of our land mass, IMO.
Age of Idiocy
Romney has paid more in tips than you in taxes. He has created more jobs than you could even dream of. He has created more wealth than the next 1000 people you could mention. And he has probably contributed more to charity than you will make in a lifetime.
Get a clue.
Drew, what the fuck was that about?
Get a clue.
Okay, I realize what that bit was about. So a session with the clue-bat for Drew, who can’t follow the thread.
Reynolds wrote:
jan later replied with:
Then I replied with some suggestions of accusations (ie, “slime”) hurled against Romney by the Obama campaign, accusations that I’m either certain that his primary opponents didn’t make or that I believe they didn’t make. (With guys like Perry in the primary campaign, it’s hard to keep track of all the stupid.) I wrote the following in that vein:
These were examples of criticisms that I deemed at least as questionable, and some of which were just plain slimy, that the (R) primary challengers didn’t make, at least to the best of my recollection. These were not criticisms that I was making myself, as should have been clear from my last parenthetical when paired with the opening line.
In return, I got your usual line of argument, which is that you rich bastards are better than everyone else solely because you are rich. This has been typical of you, and I think it is why you cut Reynolds so much slack, despite the fact that he says the only use you have for black people is that you want to own a few. You can’t get it through your skull that he’s calling you the worst thing you can call a white American, because you can’t believe that a rich person wouldn’t be morally superior on all counts.
It’s all about net-worth with you. You’re probably thought Bernie Madoff was at least ten times the man Romney was, before Bernie got caught. (And it seems to me that the problem most rich folks have with Madoff wasn’t that he was a thief, it was that he stole from other rich people.)
PS And no shit, Romney has paid more in taxes than I will make in my lifetime. I was forcibly retired when I was 39 years old. Judas H. Priest, you are so fucking predictable.