Luckily for Obama, the public still likes and trusts him, at least judging by the latest polls, including NEWSWEEK’s. But, in ways both large and small, what’s left of the American establishment is taking his measure and, with surprising swiftness, they are finding him lacking.
They have some reasons to be concerned. I trace them to a central trait of the president’s character: he’s not really an in-your-face guy. By recent standards””and that includes Bill Clinton as well as George Bush””Obama for the most part is seeking to govern from the left, looking to solidify and rely on his own party more than woo Republicans. And yet he is by temperament judicious, even judicial. He’d have made a fine judge. But we don’t need a judge. We need a blunt-spoken coach.
Obama may be mistaking motion for progress, calling signals for a game plan. A busy, industrious overachiever, he likes to check off boxes on a long to-do list. A genial, amenable guy, he likes to appeal to every constituency, or at least not write off any. A beau ideal of Harvard Law, he can’t wait to tackle extra-credit answers on the exam.
But there is only one question on this great test of American fate: can he lead us away from plunging into another Depression?
The media take is that the popularity of President Obama is notable. He is at 62%. But both Bushes were at 63% at this time and the all time leader was Jimmy Carter at 73%.
Pb, current polls put him at 58% — still high, but dropping rapidly.
The public has become far more partisan than past elections; and Obama has far more to than anyone since Truman. Still, as David Frum noted, plenty of entrepreneurs are looking at their health care bills and wondering who’s going to do anything about it.
The most telling quote: “Much of what they are saying is contradictory, but all of it is focused on the president.” Obama won’t please everyone. He will have to ensure some tenacity and vision. I doubt there are many other people who could handle all the competing interests and the issues that Bush refused to handle.
I would also add that Obama should be skeptical of the establishment. If they think he can’t handle it, that might represent progress. As another prundit noted, he should not be underestimated. The Clintons and the GOP already did that.
[blockquote]The public has become far more partisan than past elections[/blockquote]You’ve got to be kidding.[blockquote]…he should not be underestimated. The Clintons and the GOP already did that. [/blockquote]Many GOP folks knew Obama would be a formidable election opponent. Clinton did mishandle her campaign. Obama has shown he’s an excellent candidate. Now he needs to show he’s an executive, and that’s what Fineman and others are looking at.
President Obama’s first task is to form his government. His list of nominees that fail to pass muster is staggering (Bush the incompetant had ONE). Why doesn’t President Obama have a better vetting process? The answer is simple. President Obama has no executive experience! He is spending his time and effort on social programs while the financial sector is wilting. The British are complaining that they can’t get a hold of people in the US Government for the G 20 summit. I think that President Obama is not ready for prime time!
The British are also stewing over Obama’s treatment of their PM Gordon Brown – no lunch at the White House; no joint press conference with flags – for our closest ally in the world! Not a good start in foreign affairs, either. As I’ve said before, this is just Jimmy Carter, II, and I’m just waiting for the double digit inflation, 14-18% mortgage rates, and 30% credit cards. At least maybe come of the CD rates will be double digit as well, and those of us who have recently lost most of our retirement savings in our 401K accounts will have a sliver of light to make some of our money back.
#5 – actually this is statistically verifiable.
Fineman seems to be saying that the Establishment has questions. That’s fine. But given that the Establishment seems to want “contradictory” things, it is inevitable that there will be dissatisfaction.
Billy – I’m sure some British are stewing. I’m not sure why we should care, or that this is a great fauz pas. It does seem manufactured by those looking for reasons to critique foreign policy. And yes, I think Obama has made a couple mistakes. Like not backing Chas Freeman.
As far as the government goes, the Republicans – who by and larg are frightened of a successful Obama, aren’t that interested in Obama staffing his government. Further, the vetting process is probably a lot more thorough than it ever has been, given the dimensions in which public figures now have to share their past.
#8, John, please … you’re not sure why we should care if the British are offended? Our closest and best ally? Who do you want to depend on in Europe … the French? the Germans? the Spanards? Though the Empire is no more, it still provides entrees around the world for us as well as Great Britain. Perhaps some of your Indian heritage is the cause of your comment.
OMG John Wilkins – Chas Freeman?? You’re serious?? Even Democrats wanted him gone! From Power Line ( http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/03/023036.php ) (yes, conservative, but serious, clear thinking, and factual):
Read the whole thing and their other posts on this issue.
I’ve just realized how I should regard any of your future posts – not at all (and you’re welcome to do the same with mine – I don’t think there’s much common ground here).
John W. It is not the Republicans who are undoing President Obama’s nominations. Several have withdrawn ie Gupta for SG, our Republican friend for commerce. Several have had serious problems with taxes Daschle. Bush the Incompetent’s one nominee was not selected because she had an illegal immigrant working as a house keeper and baby sitter! It is simply clear that those in charge of selection and vetting haven’t done a good job and seem to still be working with no review of why it isn’t happening properly. If President Obama can not find and process cabinet and staff positions what does that say about the rest of the organization?
If only Obama would ignore the establishment and embrace the line pushed by John Wilkins. Nominate a whole slew of Charles Freemans to shill for the Saudis and the Chinese on fat retainers. Then we would be assured of a one term presidency and a Republican Congress.