RSS Feed MenuDavid Brooks wrote a perceptive column today about the deficiencies in President Obama’s leadership style.
He can expect a barrage of negative comment from conservatives who will reject Brooks’ criticisms as insufficiently spicy.
As president, Obama has proved to be a very good Senate majority leader — convening committees to do the work and intervening at the end.
All his life, Obama has worked in nonhierarchical institutions — community groups, universities, legislatures — so maybe it is natural that he has a nonhierarchical style. He tends to see issues from several vantage points at once, so maybe it is natural that he favors a process that involves negotiating and fudging between different points of view.
Still, I would never have predicted he would be this sort of leader. I thought he would get into trouble via excessive self-confidence. Obama’s actual governing style emphasizes delegation and occasional passivity. Being led by Barack Obama is like being trumpeted into battle by Miles Davis. He makes you want to sit down and discern.
Brooks says Obama is too passive and withdrawn? That’s it? What about the threat to the Constitutional republic? What about deliberately wrecking the US economy so as to impose a secular socialist regime upon the ruins?
Yet Brooks has laid out the most useful and effective critique of Barack Obama for Republicans in 2012: The job has overwhelmed the man. He’s not an alien, he’s not a radical. He’s just not the person the country needs. He’s not tough enough, he’s not imaginative enough, and he’s not determined enough.
In the throes of the worst economic crisis since the 1930s, the president ran out of ideas sometime back in 2009.
In the face of opposition, Obama goes passive. The mean Republicans refused votes on his Federal Reserve nominees and Obama … did nothing. Would Ronald Reagan have done nothing? FDR? Lyndon Johnson?
With unemployment at 10% and interest rates at 1%, the president got persuaded that it was debt and interest that trumped growth and jobs as Public Issue #1.
Yet even as he yields to his opponents on the fundamental question, Obama is surprisingly rigid in his political tactics. Back in 2008, Obama made two big promises: a tax cut for everybody earning less than $250,000 and an Afghan surge. I think it’s safe to say that Obama believed in neither of them. I’d argue that neither was important to electing him. Both were adopted for defensive reasons, to shield himself from conservative critique. In the very different circumstances of 2009, both promises rapidly showed themselves to be counter-productive. The “tax cut” promise caused Obama to direct almost one-third of his big stimulus into an individual tax rebate that no economist would have regarded as effective, for reasons explained by Milton Friedman more than 40 years ago. The Afghan surge promise was regretted by Obama himself as soon as he came into office, and he spent 9 months looking for ways to evade it. He proceeded with both, leading to the two biggest problems of his presidency: a stimulus that added hugely to the national debt while under-delivering on jobs and an expanded Afghanistan war that must end in a reversion to the same disappointing status quo that prevailed before the Afghan surge. Obama probably anticipated both results. And yet he staggered forward anyway. As ready as Obama is to surrender to uncongenial political pressures, he is strangely inattentive to negative real-world results.
Message for Republicans: you don’t have to hate Obama to be disappointed in him. In fact hating him probably blinds you to the most important ways in which Americans have been disappointed.
Listen to Brooks, he shows the way forward.
Slide // Jun 28, 2011 at 3:42 pm
sinz54 did you see the crowds and enthusiasm that he generated during the last election? Hold onto your panties and see what happens this election cycle again. I have not seen crowds that “inspired” in a long long time. Can’t wait to see the comparisons between his campaign crowds and that of Romney.
Smargalicious // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:01 pm
^That was before he was exposed.
think4yourself // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:01 pm
I like David Brooks, but I don’t entirely agree with his central point:
“]The Obama style has advantages, but it has served his party poorly in the current budget fight. He has not educated the country about the debt challenge. He has not laid out a plan, aside from one vague, hyperpoliticized speech. He has ceded the initiative to the Republicans, who have dominated the debate by establishing facts on the ground.”
Yes he has a pattern of letting others (Congress, Biden, etc.) do the initial negotiating. The fact is that worked on ACA (people disagree, but I haven’t heard a compelling argument that another path would have worked better), and it worked on finishing last year’s budget. It may work here. Obama is not Christie – laying down the law and daring anyone to cross him. Instead he quietly gets things accomplished, that doesn’t make him look like a star, but does make him effective at his agenda (which may different than the party’s).
As far as ceding ground to the GOP, he lets them dominate the airwaves, which doesn’t mean they have established the facts. Here are the facts, if the debt ceiling isn’t lifted, someone’s gonna get blamed. Cantor and the GOP walked away. I suspect the President thinks they’ll remember that.
He is a centrist (not center right, but certainly not a lefty). He hasn’t gotten all that he wants and certainly hasn’t gotten near what he promised, but so far he doesn’t have any big losses (for Bush he lost on Social Security and immigration along with vast repudiation of much of the justification for torture).
As far as Frum’s point that the job has overwhelmed the man and that he is not tough enough or imaginative enough. I’m sure that Obama’s people will happily point to a dead Bin Laden time and time again. Obama is in a marathon reelection campaign, not a sprint. Hillary Clinton underestimated him as well. If it really looks like a campaign barb about not being tough is sticking when it’s important, I wouldn’t be surprised if someone leaks photos of a dead Bin Laden. Obama plays basketball, if your opponent is up 6 points in the first 5 minutes of the game (which is not the case here), that’s not a reason to panic. It’s about closing out.
ottovbvs // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Would this be the David Brooks who wrote this or is it another David Brooks? And when you’ve read it tell me why anyone in his right mind would pay ten cents worth of notice to anything that the real David Brooks has to say about the character and competence of presidents.
George W. Bush should be president
Forget his image as a callous, empty-headed frat boy. People like him, and that means he’ll attract and retain the best minds.
By David Brooks
“This confirms something I’ve always suspected. George W. Bush is not a ruthless hard-ass. He’s not even an arrogant frat boy, capable of cruelty. He is, deep down, a very nice guy who likes people….
So I am planning to vote for George W. Bush because he is a nice guy. As a nice guy he will attract and retain the loyalty of outstanding administration officials, and together they will promote policies that are smarter and bolder than we ever would expect, just from looking at Bush himself. As a nice man, he will prove remarkably adept at working with Congress, with Democrats, with the media and with all the other different people you need to handle as president. He will set a tone of bonhomie that will grease the machinery of government; things will actually get done in Washington again.
Niceness isn’t normally the sort of talent we think qualifies you to be president. We look for greater qualities, like genius or experience or past heroism. But look at what niceness has done for Bush already. When he was running against Ann Richards to be governor of Texas, he attracted a superb staff. Richards looked unbeatable, but Bush ran a brilliant campaign and did beat her. As governor, he bonded with Democratic Lt. Gov. Bob Bullock (the Texas Constitution gives the lieutenant governor more power than the governor), and he worked extremely well with the state Legislature. He met with almost every member of the Legislature in his first few weeks in office (something Richards never did) and established personal bonds of friendship. Talk to a Texas Democratic legislator about Bush; they are rhapsodic about what a great guy he is.
His administration worked quickly and effectively. Bush is no policy genius, but he does have an instinct for the bold move and then sticks with aides who draw up the plans. His administration suggested a bold tax reform package, which moved the state’s revenue base from income to property taxes. It infuriated members of the business community, who were scarcely paying taxes under the income tax regime, and in the end he had to compromise away key elements of the plan (it was the state Republicans who opposed it). But in that episode he demonstrated a surprising penchant for innovation.
Bush has run a superb presidential campaign, much better than Bob Dole, for all his experience, was able to run; much better than Bush the elder was able to run in either 1988 or 1992. Again, he has attracted an outstanding and loyal staff and he’s shown the instinct for the bold idea. Most GOP candidates would not have endorsed a Social Security reform plan that involved letting people open private accounts. It’s a politically risky venture. But Bush exceeds expectations.
Now you might think that being nice is no great shakes. Aren’t all politicians nice? You naive fool. In fact, most politicians who are mad enough to run for president are not nice. They are freaks. They are solipsists. They are consumed by a desire for power or a desire to be loved all the time. They can only think of their Queen Bee selves. That’s why so few presidents actually have close friends. Either they are aloof from anybody who could possibly address them as an equal (like Nixon) or they have personally useful contacts in place of friendship (like Clinton), and they discard those people when they are no longer useful.
Look at Al Gore. He is a deeply un-nice man. He was an unpopular senator because no one could penetrate his phoniness. Unlike Bush, he has not been able to attract and retain talented staff. Bush has created a smooth-running campaign team. Gore runs through people at an alarming rate, and many (though not all) of the Gore people are un-nice — ask the reporters who have to cover the campaign.
On foreign policy matters, for example, Bush has attracted the policy wonk version of the 1927 Yankees. You look at the people who will fill key slots in his administration, from Condoleezza Rice down through less-prominent advisors such as Paul Wolfowitz. They are the best out there. Gore has not acquired a talented foreign policy team. He is aloof from most experts except one: a man named Leon Feurth, who is also secretive and distant.
I’ve come to appreciate that while Bush appears callow, he continually exceeds expectations. And he does it not through force of intellect but through force of personality. We are lucky enough this year to have a man running for president who has not spent his life consumed by the idea that he must be president.
In other words we are lucky to have a relatively normal person running for president. Maybe Willy Loman was right: It’s important to be liked and even more important to be well liked. “
rubbernecker // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:37 pm
^Oh man, that is priceless.
pnumi2 // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:43 pm
otto
“He is, deep down, a very nice guy…”
Proving once and for all that nice guys finish last.
ottovbvs // Jun 28, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Proving once and for all that nice guys finish last.
Proving either that Brooks has lamentable judgement or he’s a Republican shill. Either way any opinions he may have on Obama’s management style and capabiilities are less than worthless. They are as reliable as Greek credit.
Smargalicious // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:13 pm
Indeed. He wants the paycheck and the perks, and used a gullible lamestream media to propel him, completely un-vetted, to get him the seat.
Now the economy, and the world, is suffering from a vastly weakened America.
God help us all.
pnumi2 // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:26 pm
Smarg
Do you know anyone that’s not in it for the paycheck and the perks?
btw, I’m glad you said “first.” It makes me think you’re more like the rest of us ex-teenagers.
ram6968 // Jun 28, 2011 at 6:28 pm
this is smarg’s porch……he can’t play with the bigdogs at huffpo….they’d make fishbait out of him…..so here he sits….
armstp // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:17 pm
“…he has a nonhierarchical style. “
Although I doubt that Brooks really has a good feel for how Obama leads, as he is not prive to the inside scoop, is there something wrong with a nonhierarchical style? Someone who considers all viewpoints and then thinks things through sounds pretty good to me.
I agree with Slide above. Obama has an amazing ability to inspire. Even today when you hear him speak, he really gets you thinking and moving in a certain direction.
I would say no one on the Republican side has any particular leadership style or even skills. Romney sat on his big money at Bain. He was good at raising private equity. He was a mediocre Governor and not a particularly good leader as Governor.
The thing about Obama is that everyone always underestimates him and then he gets big things done. What he has so far achieved from a legislative point of view is quite remarkable. Biggest and most important piece of social legislation in generations, biggest financial reform in at least 30 years, he gave the military their Afghan surge and now he is appropriately switching gears in Afghanistan, biggest nuclear arms treaty since 1980s, biggest fiscal stimulus ever, gutsy call on taking out Bin Laden, gays in the military, etc. etc. All of this and more during the worst economic downturn in generations and an opposition party that has tried to block everything.
pnumi2 // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:17 pm
Gee, I always thought that a leader’s policies were determined by the times. You know,
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…”
It probably is the best of times in China these days and, except for a handful of superannuated individuals who were alive during the Great Depression, it is the worst of times here. Does anybody remember worse economic times?
As far as Obama is concerned, when you inherit an economy that’s in the toilet (any objections to that characterization?), eventually your economy ends up in the main line sewer on the way to the sewage treatment plant.
Obama hasn’t turned things around yet and the spoiled Conservatives are getting impatient for results that are beyond their own abilities. They are incapable of anything but creating problems like the ones they expect Obama to solve. And complaining that the fix is taking too long.
Kevin B // Jun 29, 2011 at 6:00 am
I’m not superannuated, but I remember long lines for gas. I remember inflation so high that my savings account paid twelve percent. I remember the crash of, when was it? 1987, I think. I remember college, and ramen noodles. I was a sandwich artist before Subway came up with that term (there were only fifteen stores in the state of Texas at the time). The sandwich I got each day as a perk was pretty much my entire diet. I remember struggling to make my student loan payments. Looking back, the total amount I borrowed was in the low thousands–if I got a bill for that amount now, I’d just pay it all off.
I remember losing all the money I had in the stock market, when I chased a bad dot com investment all the way to zero.
I survived, and I eventually got back in the stock market, doing much better. But in 2008, my net worth dropped by 60 percent when the market tanked again. My low point was 2009, about a month and a half after Obama took office. Since then my net worth has tripled.
I haven’t worked since the first week in January. My employer took me off their payroll (and insurance) in April. But I’m doing okay. I seriously considered just living off my savings for the rest of my life, but I have someone who really wants me to come work for them, and I guess I could use the health insurance for a year or so.
It certainly isn’t the worst of times for me.
pnumi2 // Jun 29, 2011 at 2:36 pm
Kevin
My bad. I should have quoted more of the enchilada.
“It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to heaven, we were all going direct the other way …”
I never meant to suggest that it wasn’t also the best of times for some Americans. And all right times for others.
I am glad to hear that you’re doing all right and I hope you continue to do so.
I have 4 couples who are good friends and they have between them 9 kids, the eldest being 11. It’s the kids I worry about most. By the time most of them are old enough to read this Dickens, who knows what the times will be like?
“We Deserve To Be Punched In The Face, But No One’s Doing It. Vote For Us!” | Poison Your Mind // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:29 pm
[...] Frum reads David Brooks so you don’t have to, and concludes: Brooks says Obama is too passive and withdrawn? That’s it? What about the threat to the [...]
SpartacusIsNotDead // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:40 pm
KRH67: “I’m curious to see where you feel Obama has fallen short.”
Firstly, the stimulus should have had much fewer tax cuts and a lot more infrastructure spending.
Secondly, Obama should not have surged in Afghanistand and he should be pulling many more forces out of both Afghan and Iraq, and he should be doing it more quickly.
I would also add that he should have pushed harder for a public option in the ACA. You may recall that GOP Senator Snowe was willing to agree to one with a trigger.
Equally important, if, as he once claimed, he wants to be a transformative president (a la Reagan), then he’ll need to use more ideological (not partisan) rhetoric like Reagan did. It’s useful to have an ideological theme that can be used to shape policy even after he’s left office.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:45 pm
wileedog: “A more liberal President would have gotten exactly nothing done with this staunch obstructionist Congress. Even when the Dems controlled both houses they could barely get through what were essentially Republican ideas like mandated insurance. You think something single payer would have somehow gotten through?”
A more liberal President would have used stronger, more assertive rhetoric to push back against all the “death panel” nonsense. And, a more liberal President would have been more effective at rallying the base in support of HCR. As Bill Maher said at the time, the President should stick up for the 70% of the country that’s not crazy. Congress won’t respond to the President, but it does respond to the public.
As for single-payer, I absolutely do not think Obama could have gotten it through, nor do I think that would have been necessary. As I pointed out in my previous post, GOP Senator Snowe (and others) were prepared to accept a public option with a trigger. That would have been a huge improvement.
armstp // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:58 pm
Spartcus,
You are wrong.
“The President should stick up for the 70% of the country that’s not crazy…” It does not matter if 70% of the country supported a public option, so long as less than 60% of the Senate did not.
Obama likely got about as much as he could on many of these issues, particularly given a requirement for a super-majority in the Senate and a GOP that blocked him at every turn. The Bluedogs are the ones who sold out the left, but if these Bluedogs were more “liberal” they would not have been elected in the first place. Most were really just GOP-lite candidates that Rahm Emanuel recruited.
“GOP Senator Snowe (and others) were prepared to accept a public option with a trigger. That would have been a huge improvement.”
You have no idea what went on and I suggest you go back and read what happened. The Public Option looked like it was going to pass with Snowe, but it was Lieberman that killed it at the last minute.
Try this.
“Connecticut Sen. Joe Lieberman, who was formerly a Democrat but who is now an independent, announced today that “if the bill remains what it is now, I will not be able to support a cloture motion before final passage.” In other words, Lieberman will support a filibuster. “I can’t see a way in which I could vote for cloture on any bill that contained a creation of a government-operated-run insurance company,” Lieberman said.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2233743/
think4yourself // Jun 28, 2011 at 6:34 pm
Spartacus, I’ll also disagree.
First, being more liberal is not the same as being more assertive. In my view Obama is consistent. He ran as a Democrat centrist and a thinking President, so I don’t fault him for operating that way. I personally preferred a public option. After Scott Brown won the election, there was no chance for anything more than they got. Did the President try and negotiate with the Senate GOP to make this a more bi-partisan bill? Yes he did and they first led him along and then abandonded the effort (as they did on stimulus, etc.).
Liberals want him to go after the GOP just as Bush (and Cheney and Rove) went after liberals. He doesn’t do that. Politically, he may also decide it’s better to be the statesman than the partisan even if it means that he gets whacked from both sides. He also may deciding that getting a bunch of half a loaf’s is better than none (ACA, stimulus, the end of DADT, pretty good record). If he decided that he should be like Howard Dean 20% of the electorate would love him. The rest would consider Mitt Romney for President.
elizajane // Jun 28, 2011 at 4:53 pm
To quote my Republican neighbors, “Of course Obama will be reelected. He’s very effective. He’s gotten everything he really wanted — Health Care, Supreme Court nominees, Osama bin Laden, lower-profile things too. He’s moderate and he’s good. And” (with a sigh) “what do we have to offer as an alternative?”
I mean, you can’t suggest that Pawlenty or Romney is going to be a snarling tiger driving through strong conservative ideas against a filibuster, and you can’t really want a pit-bull type like Bachmann or Cain or Palin.
ottovbvs // Jun 28, 2011 at 5:17 pm
To quote my Republican neighbors, “Of course Obama will be reelected. He’s very effective. He’s gotten everything he really wanted
I just got back from a two day sailing trip with a friend of mine who is a rock solid Republican (although not a crazy) and he say’s exactly the same. Or to be more precise after a few beers “Ok you got me, the guy’s f****ing good.”
SteveT // Jun 28, 2011 at 6:57 pm
Brooks is definitely a shill. When he takes the GOP leadership to task for their continuing support of the loophole that allows hedge fund managers to claim their “income” as capital gains, he will have taken a step towards my respect.
I’m waiting.
Frumplestiltskin // Jun 28, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Armstp, what a you talking about? Yes, Romer said unemployment would not exceed 8%:
Frank: Obama admin ‘dumb’ to predict no higher than 8% unemployment
By Michael O’Brien – 08/18/10 06:45 AM ET
It was “dumb” for President Obama and his aides to promise that unemployment would not surpass 8 percent if the stimulus act passed, a top House Democrat said Tuesday.
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, called into question the wisdom of projections issued by the Obama administration during the congressional fight over the stimulus bill that argued it would prevent higher levels of joblessness.
“President Obama, whom I greatly admire … when the economic recovery bill — we’re supposed to call it the ‘recovery bill,’ not the ’stimulus’ bill; that’s what the focus groups tell us — he predicted or his aides predicted at the time that if it passed, unemployment would get under 8 percent,” Frank said Tuesday evening during an appearance on the Fox Business Network. “That was a dumb thing to do.”
The administration famously released a chart during the fight over its signature $787 billion American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) showing that, if that package were enacted, unemployment would not exceed 8 percent. The projection, authored by Council of Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairwoman Christina Romer, argued that without the stimulus, unemployment would reach a high of 9 percent in the third quarter of 2010.
And then read this:
http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/The_Job_Impact_of_the_American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Plan.pdf
armstp // Jun 28, 2011 at 8:11 pm
Frump,
You are not answering my request to prove your original statement. You are bringing in irrelevant info.
Can you give me a quote from any of the three you mentioned: Roehmer, Geithner, and Summers where they explictedly say that the unemployment rate would remain below 8% after the stimulus? After all that is precisely what you are claiming!
In fact lets open it up even more. Can you give me a direct quote by anyone in the Obama adiminstration, including Obama, who said that the unemployment rate would remain below 8%? You have the entire Internet at your disposal. Go for it.
It does not matter what Barney Frank is saying. He is also completely wrong. He believes the lies spread by the right. As Politifact has checked over and over, no one in the Adminstration has ever said that the unemployment rate would stay below 8% as you said in your original post. Did you even read my links? Did you read the Politicfact fact checking?
Prove it…!
Let me help you with regard to what you are quoting? take a look at the full report from which you quote and put it in context. For example, you leave out from your quote the very next paragraph where the numbers are qualified, which makes all the difference:
“In a report issued by his economic advisors on January 10, 2009 (BEFORE Barack Obama was even sworn in as President), economic advisors Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein issued a report titled “The Job Impact of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan”. The VERY FIRST WORDS in the report are these:
“A key goal enunciated by the President-Elect concerning the American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan is that it should save or create at least 3 million jobs by the end of 2010. For this reason, we have undertaken a preliminary analysis of the jobs effects of some of the prototypical recovery packages being discussed. Our analysis will surely evolve as we and other economists work further on this topic. The results will also change as the actual package parameters are determined in cooperation with the Congress.”
Got that? The report is a PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS of a PROTOTYPICAL PACKAGE which will EVOLVE. Could it be stated any more clearly than that?
Now, here is the statement that has somehow been taken out of this PRE- PRESIDENTIAL report and put into the President’s mouth, as if by magic:
“First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus, the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of the plan.
Second, as emphasized above, there is considerable uncertainty in our estimates: both the impact of the package on GDP and the relationship between higher GDP and job creation are hard to estimate precisely. . .”
Once again, it is CLEARLY STATED that these are ESTIMATES and LIKELY to be incorrect. So why is the media pretending like the President predicted definitively that the stimulus would keep unemployment under 8% when he NEVER DID?
The unemployment rate in January 2009 was 7.6%, so CLEARLY nobody in there RIGHT MIND thought that the Stimulus package was going to be able to hold it under 8%. The stimulus bill wasn’t signed into law until mid February . . . the unemployment rate then was ALREADY 8.1%.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/07/26/758135/-Debunking-the-Obama-said-unemployment-wouldnt-go-over-8-LIE
Frumplestiltskin // Jun 28, 2011 at 7:18 pm
It has a chart that shows 8% as the top.
First, the likely scale of employment loss is extremely large. The U.S. economy has already lost
nearly 2.6 million jobs since the business cycle peak in December 2007. In the absence of stimulus,
the economy could lose another 3 to 4 million more. Thus, we are working to counter a potential
total job loss of at least 5 million. As Figure 1 shows, even with the large prototypical package, the
unemployment rate in 2010Q4 is predicted to be approximately 7.0%, which is well below the
approximately 8.8% that would result in the absence of a plan.
The chart is absolutely clear. Now maybe they did not mouth the words, but the report is clear.
Now people are saying because it was a projected estimate it was somehow not…what exactly? Not to be taken seriously? Liable to be wrong? Listen, we are all laughing at the absurdity of the Ryan projections. No way should we cut him some slack when we know full well they are bullshit.
Romer made a mistake, and hell she has apologized for it.
Anyway, my point is that the Administration did misjudge the severity of the recession, I think we can agree on that.
armstp // Jun 28, 2011 at 8:26 pm
Frump,
See my reply above. No one in the Obama adminstration every said the unemployment rate would remain below 8%. Again provide a direct quote if you can? Not some lame ass paragraph you quote that is completely out of context, as you completely ignore the very next paragraph where the forecast is quantified. I would hardly say this paragraph in one report that was put out before Obama was even President is big evidence that the Obama adminstration (specially as you say Roehmer, Geithner, and Summers) was loudly trumping up a below 8% number. Complete BS. The only ones trumpeting the 8% number were Republicans, as they lied.
ChallengingFrum // Jun 28, 2011 at 7:28 pm
Neither of you guys are perceptive.
Obama likes to appear passive and withdrawn so that he can get the most liberal policy possible without the political ramifications. He allowed Pelosi to push as hard as she could to get a public option but when they couldn’t get it he swooped in and pretended that he was a disinterested mediator. Same with the bush tax cuts. Now that the republicans control the house, the game has changed marginally. Now Obama makes no proposal and receives no criticism and negotiates through Biden.
Its his version of Reagan’s “amiable dunce” tactic. Stay aloof and withdrawn, wear lots of suits and smile. I’ll give him credit, he understands game theory. But with Obama, it will always be Reagan’s words and Carter’s policies.
PS David why would you want republicans to win, then they would have power.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Jun 28, 2011 at 7:29 pm
armstp: “It does not matter if 70% of the country supported a public option, so long as less than 60% of the Senate did not. Obama likely got about as much as he could on many of these issues, particularly given a requirement for a super-majority in the Senate and a GOP that blocked him at every turn.”
It absolutely does matter that 70% of the country supports something if that 70% is willing to make its preference known to Congress. I fault Obama for not being more assertive and tenacious in publicly rebutting all of the false claims about HCR. He seemed to focus primarily on negotiating a deal among Congressional reps while not bringing any public pressure to bear on those reps.
It’s unreasonable to believe that he could not have obtained a more progressive bill if more public pressure had been placed on Congress. And, in light of the fact that he didn’t tenaciously rebut all the public lies, it’s unreasonable to believe that he couldn’t have inspired more public pressure.
armstp // Jun 28, 2011 at 8:36 pm
sparta,
“It absolutely does matter that 70% of the country supports something if that 70% is willing to make its preference known to Congress.”
The key to your statement was the second part I bolded. That is the difference. Not much Obama can do if less than 60 Senators are unwilling to vote for Obama bills. The reality was that the 70% of the population was putting no pressure on their congress men and women and making their preferences known (although the teaparty clear was) and if they were the Congress men and women were ignoring them. 70% is a big number, so why did no Republicans vote fore Obama bills, given that likely a majority of people in their own districts were for much of what Obama was proposing? Progressives did nothing. They just laid there and took it in the ass. Obama needed a big push by progressives in their millions to help him and they did nothing. Where were the Progressives at these townhalls to counter the spin of the Tea Party? Progressives have to take some of the blame here. There is only so much a President could do. Why did they not come out in the 2010 elections?
I agree Obama lost the PR war, but that was going to be hard to win when the healthcare industry was spending hundreds of millions on advertising against him. Instead of completely going to war Obama made the decision to continue to try and work with the opposition to get something done. If he had completely went to war, he likely would have gotten nothing done and 50 million people would not be getting health insurance in 2014. Was that a gamble you would have been willing to make?
SpartacusIsNotDead // Jun 28, 2011 at 7:41 pm
think4yourself: “First, being more liberal is not the same as being more assertive. In my view Obama is consistent. He ran as a Democrat centrist and a thinking President, so I don’t fault him for operating that way.”
I don’t think we’re disagreeing. I said Obama is centrist, maybe even right-of-center, and so he has governed that way. My critique is that the country’s problems require more than centrist policies. Liberal policies are required and Obama has not aggressively pursued these more liberal policies despite the fact that he has often used rhetoric that would suggest that he believes they would be appropriate. So, his rhetoric would indicate that he’d like more progressive policies, but he has not been assertive in marshalling public support for those policies.
I’m not arguing he hasn’t accomplished a lot significant legislation – he clearly has. It’s just that his accomplishments fall short of what he himself said would be required, and he has not been very skillful or tenancious in creating the kind of public sentiment that would give Congress the incentive to pass the kind of legislation that he once believed was necessary. His failure/inability to rally public opinion has made his job harder.
I’m also not arguing he needs to be nastier – he does not. But he does need to be more engaged with the public. It’s a mystery he’s not because he does have high likeability ratings. He should use that to rally people to his views.
SpartacusIsNotDead // Jun 28, 2011 at 11:17 pm
armstp: “Progressives have to take some of the blame here. There is only so much a President could do. Why did they not come out in the 2010 elections?”
But Obama didn’t do all that he could have done. He didn’t need to sit idly by while TPers were shouting “death panels.” He should have been getting his message out there. Also, most of that 70% are not Progressives; they’re just regular, middle-of-the-road people who do require more engagement than your typical activist. Obama did not engage them. And that is why he lost the 2010 elections.
“If [Obama] had completely went to war, he likely would have gotten nothing done and 50 million people would not be getting health insurance in 2014. Was that a gamble you would have been willing to make?”
I’m not sure what you mean by going “completely to war” but if it means making sure that the facts get out there and in a charming, charismatic way, then I absolutely think Obama was capable of doing that and he should have done that. Had he done it I don’t for one minute believe he wouldn’t have gotten a bill through. I believe he would have gotten a better bill than he did get.
armstp // Jun 29, 2011 at 9:33 am
Sparta,
I think you are nieve. You think if Obama had got “out there and in a charming, charismatic way” he would have gotten a better deal.
It was a PR war that the Dems lost. They faced a mountain of advertising cash and a MSM that was unwilling to challenge the assertions of the GOP. They got no help from their progressive masses.
He is lucky he got the deal he did. After 1 year and endless games by the GOP he got his bills passed by only a couple of votes. Lieberman was not going to vote for a Public Option.
Obama is His Own Worst Enemy | FrumForum | Barack Obama // Jun 29, 2011 at 10:30 am
[...] Link: Obama is His Own Worst Enemy | FrumForum [...]
Bill in Exile » Blog Archive » QUOTE OF THE DAY // Jun 29, 2011 at 10:35 am
[...] David Frum on Barack Obama in a piece titled Obama is His Own Worst Enemy. [...]
Obama Is President, But Is He A Leader? // Jun 29, 2011 at 1:54 pm
[...] Frum is, if anything, harsher than Brooks in his assessment of Obama and notes that Brooks has given Republicans their best argument against Obama: Brooks has laid out [...]
Medicaid Cuts and the March Toward a Charity Model of Care : HEALTH REFORM WATCH // Jun 30, 2011 at 8:51 am
[...] end) Medicaid, and Democratic resistance. But now even the Obama Administration is showing signs of reverting to form and endorsing a patina of Medicaid coverage without its substance. It is now too scared to even try [...]
Bulldozed : Near Earth Object // Jul 11, 2011 at 10:27 am
[...] easily. Frum takes the ball from an earlier David Brooks column, and runs with it, reaching this damning conclusion (or at least damning tack against Obama for his opponent in 2012): The job has overwhelmed the man. [...]