Obama is hitting his stride. He is no longer intimidated by the GOP or afraid to go forward without any bi-partisianship from the GOP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34KQwT5p5E4 Obama at George Mason on health reform yesterday. Well done.
After Scott Brown won in Mass., I expected Obama to turn more combative out of necessity and with the mid-terms approaching. The Republicans basically left that door wide-open for him because of their intransigence and obstructionism. But he can't totally abandon the bipartisan approach because he campaigned on it so hard in 2008. Some Republicans I know thought Obama was doomed because of Scott Brown. They were just repeating the same mistakes of the past. From the very beginning, everyone should have known Obama would have a very tough first year because of his long agenda and because all administrations make a lot of blunders their first year or two and need time to figure things out. But this sharp rebound by Obama on health care is amazing. Didn't see it coming at all. glynch, I don't think Obama was ever intimidated by Republicans, though I'm not surprised someone like you would conclude that. You just have to come to grips with the fact he isn't a left-wing firebrand who will scorch the Earth on every issue. His approach is why he was elected president.
Glynch, you and I are obverse sides of the coin most of the time. However, I am glad to see Obama developing a backbone, i.e. the will to implement his vision. Nonetheless, I am alarmed at the borderline quasi-constitutional tactics, but I fault Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid for that. Arm-twisting and quid pro quo bargaining are fair. Obama ran at least eight years too early. He needed to earn his spurs in the legislative halls. Because of his extreme inexperience, he has to rely on some very polarizing staff, pols and pals who paint him into a corner by association. Add breaking campaign promises (like "transparency" and "bi-partisanship") willy nilly, and he ramps up the suspicion and fear of "typical Americans" on a daily basis.
Uh, the reason for the thread is because Obama has tried too hard for bi-partisanship since he was elected and it hasn't worked. So your post doesn't really make any sense.
His attempts at bi-partisanship have been cosmetic at best. As an example, he appointed Sen. Judd Gregg to an important post at the start of his presidency, and then emasculated the position making obvious his desire to remove a powerful Republican from the Senate -- not promote bi-partisanship.
Thank you for correcting yourself. By your own admission he has attempted bi-partisanship. Let us not dwell on the reasons why it wasn't effective
Calling a limp-wristed attempt at bi-partisanship isn't actual bi-partisanship. The reasons for its ineffectiveness are absolutely germane to his approach to governing.
Mc mark, trying to lay the blame somewhere else is weak. Can't you show some objectivity in dissecting Obama's weaknesses? IMO, he is bound to be a single term president under his current level of ineptitude. You and I love the Rockets, for example. We both look at the strengths and weaknesses of the team. We may not agree on the needs, but we can agree that experts (Morey and Adelman) are looking at the team objectively for improvement. Who is looking at Obama objectively?
current level of ineptitude? Dude seriously Averted an economic collapse that would have equaled the great depression Immediately improved America’s image around the world Ended the Iraq war and begin the process of bring troops home and closing Gitmo Stabilized the markets and job loss Just passed a Jobs bill About to pass the most sweeping piece of social legislation in generations Ineptitude? In my opinion (and apparently glynch's) Obama’s weakness is that he didn’t follow his instincts more boldly.
That's what it seems like. If the bill is enacted, this will be one of the biggest pieces of legislation since the 1960s.
Yes. I can't believe how he emasculated the responsibilities of Gates... you know, the guy who is the Secretary of Defense. Then there was Ray LaHood, who is the current Secretary of Transportation. That post only has responsibility for building and maintaining the infrastructure of our real economy. Then there was also a Republican appointed to be Ambassador to China, but that's a throwaway country that will have no importance in the coming decades.
Gates is a career administrator, not really a pol. LaHood is a nice example, although I need to research what he has been allowed to actually accomplish. The ambassadorship to China or anywhere else is more social / ceremonial that political -- ambassadors take their marching orders from the secretary of state who takes marching orders from the president.
The Southwest Regional Budget Officer for FEMA is a career administrator. If you get appointed by a polarizing President and approved by the Senate to be the Secretary of Defense in the middle of two wars, one of which is as polarizing as anything in our history and you're replacing a deeply polarizing figure, you're a politician.
With a huge majority in both houses, a president could get a broom handle appointed. Legislation is a different matter.
What does that mean and how does it relate to our previous posts? By the way, you do realize that only the Senate gives consent to appointments, right?
Perhaps I didn't understand your Regional Budget Officer post. Yes, the Senate gives consent (although most of Obama's czars, for example, have not been approved by the Senate. Usually, though, as a courtesy, House members are consulted regarding appointees from their state. However, we are wandering too far afield from glynch's original observation. I do appreciate your commentary and always enjoy our exchanges.
