03/12/2009 (11:17 am)
Incompetent
It’s not just Republican partisans saying it anymore. Democrats are starting to notice, and they’re getting nervous.
A few days ago, we heard from Warren Buffet, investor maverick and known Obama supporter, in a long interview on CNBC. Mickey Kaus at Slate noticed how Buffet returned several times to emphasize how a President ought not to respond to a crisis, citing Obama’s partisan divisiveness at a time when the nation needs unity and reassurance. (Hot Air has about 30 minutes of the interview, including the portions Kaus quotes.)
A little while later on Monday, Howard Fineman published on Newsweek his assertion that Obama is “dismissed as being in over his head by technocrats” in Washington. Fineman uneasily lays the blame on Obama’s judicious character, but admits, “He’d have made a fine judge. But we don’t need a judge. We need a blunt-spoken coach.” Ed Morrissey guffaws indecorously over Fineman’s reluctance to acknowledge what he’s seeing.
And yesterday, Camille Paglia, candid Tazmanian devil of sensible feminism, tried to lay the blame on Obama’s advisors, calling for blood.
Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama’s first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)
She hopes that the President, “… in whom I still have great hope and confidence…”, can emerge from the string of flubs and miscues and begin to fulfill his potential. But she’s nervous. (In the meantime, Ms. Paglia receives the Plumb Bob “Phrase of the Hour” award for her colorful and accurate portrayal, “that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package.” Classy. Congratulations, Dr. Paglia.)
The Obama administration is only 2 months old, but there are reasons to worry. There are mistakes one makes simply because of ignorance, and mistakes one makes because of inexperience… and then, there are mistakes one makes because one lacks the organizational skills or style to manage the job. We expect the former two types of mistakes from a new President, but what we’re seeing is the third type. Ignorance and inexperience are easily curable, but there’s no easy cure for having the wrong personal skill set for the job.
Foreign governments are apparently noticing, too, which explains their manifest satisfaction with the new President. President Obama made no bones about his willingness to scrap the European missile shield — and then tried to use the shield as a bargaining chip to obtain Russia’s help with Iran. What he got was a snicker: President Medvedev welcomed the “positive signals” from Washington, but felt that “haggling” would be “unproductive.” Rookie Obama showed his hand too soon; why would Russia give away favors to get what they’ve already been offered?
The Chinese are also taking advantage. Secretary of State Clinton, on her shameful “apologize for President Bush” tour, gave the Chinese a wink and a nod about their human rights record, letting them know we weren’t going to demand unaccustomed civility from them anymore. China thanked her — and boosted its defense budget 15%. And now, “inexplicably,” Chinese ships are harassing US Naval vessels in international waters near China. They’re pushing to see how far they can take the Young Lightwalker to the cleaners.
I don’t hate to say “I told you so,” but I do hate that I’m in the position to do so. Despite the press’ best efforts to whitewash the record and hide the flaws, those of us who were actually looking during the campaign season saw an inept, untried academic with no ability to think on his feet, a reflex of self-defensive dissembling, and a resume lacking any real indication of leadership ability. His qualification for the job, when asked, was the campaign itself, and sure enough, he’s showing that he does know how to campaign — but not how to run a country.
Conservative blogs, naturally, are up to speed on the subject; we have no denial to overcome. Gateway Pundit has a partisan recounting of the major events of the past 2 months, which is worth reviewing. American Thinker pounds on America’s folly “coming home to roost.” But the best of the lot, I think, is from Rougblog (which I’d never encountered before today,) reminding us that “experience matters.”
The voters went to the polls and elected an individual inexperienced in managing anything other than his campaign for election… What mattered to most was Obama’s skill behind the teleprompter, his voice, his persona, hope, and change. And to 52% of the American voting public, it was good enough.
And the last six weeks are now history. A six weeks that could prove to be the worst six weeks of any presidency ever, and given Jimmy Carter’s abysmal record, that is saying something.
There is not one component of Obama’s administration that is firing on all cylinders. The failures began early on with cabinet choice after cabinet choice being exposed as a tax cheat. Even his choice to rein in tax cheats was a tax cheat.
His handling of the economy has been a mishmash of blame casting on others (for policies enacted that he was in full support of) and of reiterating to the public that things are simply horrible. The market, in full sympathy, has tanked to levels not seen in many years….
His foreign policy has amounted to a global apology tour that has done nothing but given despots like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hugo Chavez golden opportunities to promote their legitimacy amongst America’s enemies and their own controlled masses. Our allies are snubbed while our enemies are pleadingly presented with ‘I’m sorry’ notes with the presidential seal.
Domestic policy has been little more than machine gun payoffs for his most valued constituencies, pro-abortionists, unions, environmentalists, and today, his beloved advocates of embryonic stem cell research….
And it took all of six weeks.
Experience matters.
The President of the United States had better grow up quickly.
« « Abortion and the Death of Liberty of Conscience | Main | Them There Tax Cheats » »
18 Comments »
Comment by Joseph Huster
Phil,
Perhaps I shouldn’t ask this, but why would any serious thinker spend time commenting on media gossip/speculation regarding Obama’s “failure” and/or “incompetence” this early in his term? You seem to be yearning for evidence that Obama is incompetent.
Additionally, the evidence you sight regarding foriegn governments “taking advantage” of Obama is pretty weak. You should ask yourself, is my account the only, or best, interpretation of these leaders’ respopnses, or these events? Do I see it this way because I want to, or because the evidence forces me to?
From my perspective, the interpretation you provided fits your preconceived thesis about Obama. Its data gerrymanded to fit the policy.
Did you expend similar energies analyizing the myriad follies of the last eight-years? Did you editorialize on the intelligence failures regarding weapons of mass destruction, the corruption within the Republican party, the Iraq war follies, the Katrina follies, the outing of a CIA agent for political gain, the financial meltdown enabled by a failure to regulate Wall Street Banks? (I can go on for quite awhile, but I’ll stop now because I have a client meeting soon). 
And if you did analize these issues, where did you place the blame? Did you ever suggest that President Bush failed, or was incompetent in his handling of these matters?
(If you did, my apologies. But I suspect you went pretty easy on Bush – given the magnitide of the disaster).
For what its worth, I think repeating gossip of this sort corrupts public discourse. I understand that its an effective political tool, but I think its beneath you.
I know its beneath me.
I also think that this sort of commentary casts you as a pure partisan, rather than an independant analyst. This will limit your appeal and your credibility in the long run.
Those are just my thoughts. I’ll look forward to further comments.
Joe H.
Comment by Phil
Perhaps I shouldn’t ask this, but why would any serious thinker spend time commenting on media gossip/speculation regarding Obama’s “failure” and/or “incompetence” this early in his term?
Um… because it’s news?
I’ve thought him incompetent all along, and have said so. What I’m noticing is that Democrats are starting to think so as well. And when members of the President’s own party, buttressed by the “technocrats” in Washington that Kurtz mentions, start to make that particular case (or, like some, begin doing their best to explain it away,) it becomes newsworthy.
Believe me, I understand why that might be uncomfortable to someone who supported him, and I expect kick-back on this. That’s ok. It’s part of life. But that doesn’t make it any less news.
Now, regarding your questions about my partisanship, the answer is generally “yes, I did examine those things, and I editorialized about some of them.” I’m sure my conclusions about them were different from yours; that’s the nature of political commentary. And yes, I’m partisan — that’s also the nature of political commentary — but I’m fair-minded and intelligent, and I attempt to examine whatever evidence is available to me as objectively as possible.
I do not believe President Bush was incompetent in the manner I’m suspecting President Obama is. I believe most of the noise of the last 8 years was the product of a very deliberate, very well-supported noise machine, and that nearly all of the “scandals” of the Bush years were manufactured as a means to obtain political advantage. Katrina is a prime example. One fault which I found to be true of the Bush administration is that he seemed to hand out patronage jobs to friends. That does not mean those friends are incompetent, but it does mean that he may not have considered all qualified candidates. There was one complaint about the Bush administration in response to Katrina that was correct, namely that FEMA director Brown appears to have taken the situation less seriously than he should have at first, and that Brown’s was a patronage appointment.
Now, that’s a bad thing. However, the manufactured rage about Katrina has been thoroughly debunked by now. FEMA did, in fact, have supplies on hand along the Gulf Coast BEFORE the storm hit. The Superdome did NOT have violence taking place in it, there WAS adequate food and water there, residents WERE cared for as well as could be expected under the circumstances, the National Guard DID respond appropriately, etc. The vitriol aimed at the President turns out, after examination, to have been utterly fabricated out of whole cloth. The people that need to be the most ashamed about Katrina are the reporters who created the scandal in the first place. The President responded to the situation competently in every imaginable way. The only valid criticism that I can see, after examining the facts, is that Michael Brown may have been a poor choice for FEMA head (and given the vicious and inaccurate news reporting on which that assessment is based, I’m not even entirely sure of that.)
Most of my criticism of President Bush has been in the manner of policy disputes. I was generally dissatisfied with every aspect of his domestic policy, aside from his handling of stem cell research and partial-birth abortion. I thought his education policy was overbearing and wrong-headed, I thought his Medicare plan was the wrong direction, I thought his abandonment of social security reform was unacceptable and his political handling of the matter inept, I don’t understand why they didn’t succeed at clipping FNMA’s wings, I completely did not understand his reluctance to deal with the Mexican border issues, and I thought his response to the economic crisis of the last year was utterly wrong. Sadly, I wasn’t blogging through most of his term, so I can’t produce evidence of this; you’ll just have to take my word for it.
However, I do not accept virtually ANY of the left’s pet “disaster” themes about the Bush administration, as I believe they are almost uniformly the product of unhinged, partisan hatred, of a sort that I can’t even begin to fathom. I believe I can produce instances supporting this assertion on just about any of the left’s favorite themes. None of them hold much water, frankly.
And the one thing that cannot be said of President Bush is that the job was over his head. Whatever your assessment of his morals, his handling of the Iraq war, or whatever, it was clear from the beginning who was running the country, and that it was being run that way deliberately.
Comment by RM
Very interesting post and response to Joe. My wife leans left (Clinton and Kerry voter), but would not vote for Obama, feeling he was too inexperienced and probably not up to the task.
I would not crow too soon (I don’t think you’re crowing actually). During the campaign, if nothing else, Obama proved to me that he is a fast learner, with the capability of being pragmatic, and completely ruthless if need be. I would not put it past him, if things slide too far, to clean house where it needs it most.
Newt Gingrich opined early on that he felt Obama would govern as a centrist, figuring it would be better not to totally alienate half the country. I also thought this, figuring he was smart enough to avoid the rookie mistake of reaching too far, too fast. I was wrong about that, and I may be wrong here also, but I find it hard to believe he is as bad as he seems thus far. He may yet trim sails a bit, triangulate a la Clinton channeling Dick Morris.
By the way, you were pretty forthright in saying pre-election that he was essentially a closet socialist. I thought you were probably right, but felt there was not enough evidence to make the call at that time. I think you hit that one on the head. The question is, does he just want a sort of French type ‘third way’ socialist system with the government as the ultimate shot caller, or is he is he even more radical than that?
Comment by turfmann
Phil,
I had to venture from the Cape down to Atlantic City yesterday scouting out a business venture. I drove a truck with a balky radio – poor FM reception and no AM at all – so I was “stuck” listening to NPR. (Aside: isn’t it ironic that for all of the whining about fairness in talk radio, the strongest radio signals are those of public broadcasters?)
I actually like listening to “Morning Edition” and “All Things Considered” as I think they at least try to give the appearance of fairness and practice journalism in a competent way. But I have to tell you that the filler between the two broadcasts was something to behold.
I wish that I were not traveling at breakneck speed of the George Washington Bridge otherwise I would have taken notes, but the alternate universe that these people inhabit is breathtaking.
Especially notable was a progressive talk show hosted by a woman in New York City who sung the praises for Obama as she took prearranged phone calls from other activists who gushed over their latest cause or next demonstration.
One woman in particular called in from Manhattan to alternately bash George Bush for everything but the busses running late and damn the capitalist system as evil, oppressive and a failure that must be dismantled by her beloved Barack. She then went on to say that her latest project was helping women start new businesses. Upon hearing that I thought I was suffering some type of seizure, so I pulled into the Vince Lombardi rest area on the Jersey Turnpike to get some fresh air. Bad idea. They were out.
On the way back to the Cape, I was entreated to none other that Tavis Smiley on “Talk of the Nation”, who was busy hawking his new book “Accountable”. Tavis thinks that we can hold Obama accountable for all of his campaign promises and gives us a handy scorecard in his book so we can follow along. Tavis at once tells us how schooled he is in civics, then tells us how magnificently Obama is doing in his first fifty days.
Comment by Horatius
Yeah, the radio reception thing can get you down. If you have the funds I might recommend XM/Sirius. I bought it for one reason alone- the 40’s channel. The 50’s channel is not bad, but I love the 40’s channel for it’s rebroadcasts of old news stories (or it could be simply recreations, I like the idea that they are rebroadcasts.) It is like stepping back in time listening to the Andrews Sisters, Bing Crosby, Louis Armstrong, and Sinatra (the totally dedicated Sinatra station is a bit too dedicated for my tastes.)
Otherwise, on the other stations you do have to endure some dj’s opining about the days events (funny how I love listening to a dj from 60-70 years ago doing the same thing, but hate it when it is stuff that I should be able to better relate to, but oh well.) However, the variety of music you can find is pretty nice. Classical music on a non-npr station is a bit of heaven.
Comment by RM
Amen to the comments about reception. Would love to hear Mark Levin and Laura Ingraham, but haven’t been able to find them easily. I’ve stayed away from Sirius because I’m a bit technologically challenged, and I somehow assume it will be yet another mind numbing electronic gadget that has to be installed and mastered.
Comment by Horatius
Actually it is not too bad. I got a fairly cheap hand held receiver from Amazon (they were on sale through the Christmas Season.) It has a pretty large storage capacity (you can download music off the air as with Tivo on TV.) The controls are very similar to an ipod with pretty simple menus to navigate.
I bought a third party tape adapter to be able to listen to it in my car through the regular speakers.
In the car you may or may not need to also get a dock with a antenna hookup. I find that since my car is a convertible, I can get a signal very well in town with just the hand held’s built in antenna. However once I get out of town, I would have to use a mounted antenna.
Comment by Phil
turfman,
From which Cape? You’re not here on Cape Cod, are you? I thought you’d already told me you were from somewhere else.
Comment by Phil
The question is, does he just want a sort of French type ‘third way’ socialist system with the government as the ultimate shot caller, or is he is he even more radical than that?
I think he’s more radical than that. The irony is that the first 50 days is Obama’s version of triangulation; he’s stuck to things he thinks he can get away with given the current state of the electorate.
Comment by turfmann
Phil,
Nope, I’m from Sandwich.
I didn’t realize that there were any other Capes.
Comment by Robert
I hate to disagree, but I feel I must: Obama’s campaign was run by Democrat operatives, NOT Obama. He never provided any knowledge, leadership, nor direction to his campaign, he was simply the “product” that was packaged by others and presented to the American public – by a highly expensive marketing campaign. He also lied about Federal Campaign Financing and outspent McCain 4 to 1. Demonstrating McCain’s leadership in his campaign – his willingness to lose the election rather than renege on his promise. Leadership that was sorely lacking in the Obama campaign. That alone speaks volumes.
Sorry to disagree.
Comment by RM
Not sure which is scarier. The idea that what we have seen is just the beginning and is Obama’s idea of moderation. Or the idea that the electorate may just buy it.
I thought initially that some of the stuff that is happening would be humorous to watch if the stakes weren’t so high. I felt that way during the Clinton years, more bemused than angry. Normally I shy away from “The sky is falling” type of analysis and rhetoric. But the way things are going, there is a very small part of me that is beginning to think that it is conceivable that we are headed too far over the precipice, and that our last, best hope could end up being a quick implosion.
Comment by Phil
turfman,
Well, heck, send me email with your phone # in it, and let’s get together for coffee sometime. I’m in Dennis.
Comment by Phil
We don’t really disagree, Robert. The same guys who ran his campaign are running the ongoing White House campaign, as well. In fact, back when Obama made that incredible claim that running his campaign qualified him for the presidency, I wrote a post entitled “David Axelrod for President,” in which I argued pretty much as you just did. So, no worries, mate, we’re seeing the same things.
Comment by TX CHL Instructor
What scares me is that the congress is acting like a bunch of pre-schoolers let loose in a candy store and told they can have whatever they want. The only important difference being that we will get the inevitable tummyache, and not them.
And The One, complaining about earmarks, just signed another pork-laden boondoggle. (”I can quite anytime”) I wonder if anybody actually read this one before the vote.
The One’s only principles consist of licking his finger and holding it up. The Ship of State no longer has a rudder, and is adrift subject only to the winds and currents.
Anybody noticed that the money supply has nearly TRIPLED over the last year? While deflation is a positive-feedback process (prices go down; folks put off buying; prices go dowm more), there will come a time when The One’s printing presses will overcome the “mattress money” phenomenon. And hyperinflation is also a positive-feedback phenomenon.
For those of you who don’t know what “mattress money” is, it’s primarily money outside of the banking system. In 1930, the money supply sharply increased, but people kept it out of the banking system, which slowed money velocity more than enough to compensate.
Money is essentially a form of information, and information spreads much faster nowadays than it did in the 1930’s. So when the mattress money finally starts to come out of whatever cubbyholes it currently inhabits, it’s going to come out very quickly.
And our “leadership” will be furiously trying to find the rudder as we go over the falls.
–
http://www.chl-tx.com
Comment by TX CHL Instructor
typo: s/quite/quit
Comment by Horatius
Ok, here is a question I have always had. I am not sure whether this has been discussed here before or not. What is wrong with a gold (or any other type) standard?
To me intuitively it seems like it would be an easy way to curb currency fluctuations. I have never really seen the reasons against this (other than governments like being able to inject liquidity into their markets at a whim) that made a lot of sense to me. I have also heard it argued that it would have a curbing effect on the market overall- the highs would not be as high but the lows would not be as low, since the “value” of the currency is fixed.
I have heard that we operate on more of a virtual standard, but the simple fact that we are either borrowing or creating a huge amount of liquidity and then injecting it into the market right now shows we have no real standard at all.
This was one of the few things that Ron Paul said that I actually thought might make some sense.
I am not really arguing for or against it, I just have never heard the pros and the cons of the idea laid out very explicitly.
Comment by Phil
What’s wrong with a gold standard? So far as I know, nothing.
Except, it gives the government virtually no control over the money supply, and it requires the government to actually hold something of worth. If you’re a Keynesian and want to tweak the economy, or if you’re a control freak and think you can make anything happen that you choose (I’m being redundant here), then the gold standard takes a lot of control out of your hands.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
