Who is Afraid of Barack Obama?
13 September 2009 10:11 am by texan4hillary
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0909/27057.html
And this is kind of article is what you get when you rush to concede to the right wing machine every day. Perception is everything in politics. Obama’s reputation on the Hill is that of a wimp. Dems and GOP are saying this.
Obama is referenced as “goldilocks” and a “george hw bush.” GOPers love it- they are getting what they want without a shot while progressives as noted by the author get nada. Rep Nadler weighs in, again wondering why is Obama trying to piss off his base so badly? Karl Rove gives Obama a tip which is good-maybe he will listen to him since he wont listen to us. Quit being the non leader.
The nail is hit on the head. Obama lacks the fear factor. A president must be feared somewhat to use his stick. 9 months in and criticism from the base is mainstream. The meme: Obama is the new Carter. The new wimpy George HW Bush. And so far, because of his failure to respect the core of his base in this hcare fight, his image is becoming dangerously harmed.
This post was submitted by texan4hillary.
No tags for this post.
Barack Obama doesn’t like to lead with his chin on issues. He likes to sit back, which keeps him from getting blamed, but as president it reveals weakness to be strong enough to LEAD. That takes not being afraid to get beat, but also marshaling forces so you don’t. It’s going to get very lonely at the White House when health care legislation comes up without a public option.
Obama telegraphed going way back to Chas Freeman that he would not stand by his people amidst a storm. It’s really the first test. Then Van Jones, etc., with ACORN the latest to be dumped.
The other issue is respect, which Joe Wilson proved is the prevailing theme being picked up, which will only escalate after yesterday.
Wow. You guys sound like you’re nostalgic for the leadership style of George W Bush, who never listened, or conceded ANYTHING to the Democrats. Is that really what you want?
I did not support Obama in the primaries, but he is my President now. He campaigned on the idea of changing the way Washington works. That’s exactly what he’s trying to do. No surprises here.
I just find it odd that people around here think there is some sort of virtue in polarization. You have already bought into the meme that he is weak, the same narrative used for every Democratic President in my lifetime. I’m just surprised that there are still Democrats willing to fall for this bullshit. Even more surprised that there are Democrats willing carry water for that narrative.
It seems to me that when people talk about “perception” they’re really talking about themselves. Instead of fighting against outrages the President is forced to absorb on a daily basis, some seem content to “perceive” that his weakness has brought him to this place. They “perceive” a lack of leadership when he compromises on the fringes, or when he doesn’t return an insult in kind. They “perceive” it as weakness because his own caucus isn’t afraid of him.
This narrative isn’t new. I’ve been hearing it for 30 years. It brought down Jimmy Carter. It would have brought down Bill Clinton, but for a resurgent economy, and it threatens to bring down Obama. If I wanted top-down leadership, I’d be a Republican. There seems to be a fetish among certain Democrats for a daddy figure ( or should I rather say, former Republicans) benevolent but domineering. I’m sure that’s what Bush acolytes saw for 8 years.
Am I disappointed with some of the President’s actions? Sure. Do I wish he’d fight back a little more? Of course. But he’s the President of the whole country, not the Democratic party. Since when has dictatorial posturing become a virtue for a President? I thought that was what we all voted against. Maybe not.
taylor did u hear- obama will abn all public funding of abortions to satidy the right wingers. he plans to do mroe than the bill does. its on americablog with a abcnews link. obama also plans to meet with pro life grps this week to announce this. this si going to be nasty nasty fight with planned aprenthood and naral.
and hey buck-i want obama to suceed that is why so many of us are critical. we want him to make the right moves. pass good legislation and not jsut pass a bil. teddy roosevelt once said, and i believe he was one of our greatest most progressive presidents, only patirots of either party are willing to criticisize and push their president to do what is right. im a dem. i was critical of bill clinton clinton often-not always. critical of bush. and wil eb ciritical of obama and push him to do better. as part of the left fo the left its my job. its our job and our patriotic duty.
snowe rejcts triggr. goes for co ops in baucus bill. sen rockefeller- co ops dont work and he is brinign i n thos ewho run them to tell america why.snowe wont say even after the co ops in the bill would she ever vote for it.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/politicolive/0909/Collins_.html?showall
It’s called the “Bully Pulpit” for a reason!
BuckHill says:
13 September 2009 at 12:52 pm
Jimmy Carter was a weak, ineffectual President who was out of his depth. That’s not a meme or a narrative; it’s the honest description of his Presidency. This description wasn’t pulled out of the ether but based upon the evidence of Carter’s management style and his outclassed political acumen. Is he a nice guy? Absolutely. Has his been the paragon, the gold standard of Post-Presidencies? I think he’s been the single best ex-President but for Washington. That doesn’t change the disaster that was his Presidency.
As for top down leadership, this isn’t a commune it’s a Constitutional Republic with a Chief Executive. It’s built that way. Daddy potshots or not it’s our system of government. It was built to have a strong, singular, decisive political agent within the Government.
Politics is about power, about pushing. Period. It can have the tone of a brawl or of a conciliatory conversation but it’s always an arm wrestling match in the end. The tone depends upon both participants. It takes two to have peace, one to have a war.
The Republicans are never not at war. To not wage war back, well we know the words and descriptions for that. Conquest not the least.
Gandhi preached nonviolent resistance, not passive resistance. It’s possible, and what people most would like I think, for a President to govern “non-violently” but with resolve expressing the forcefulness of the character of the nation. Resolve. Sure converse, listen, explain even, but that in no way REQUIRES concession to the ill-advised, the cruel or the vindictive. One meets those with resolve or one caves to them. Its about strength of character and the power of one’s conviction, not mere bar fight for the sake of bar fighting.
“Changing Washington” does not mean not leading.
None of us are looking for a “Daddy Figure” or whatever fetish you’d like to project on us.
The matter is, he never draws a line in the sand. “Polarization” as you put it isn’t always such a bad thing, at least for the base. Did some people dislike FDR? You betcha. Both Clinton’s? Definitely. George Bush Jr.? Sure.
The thing is each of them got their agenda pushed forward. At the rate Obama is going in regards to healthcare, Olympia Snowe’s agenda will be pushed forward. And if he continues down this path, he’ll never have any agenda pushed forward with success. Sometimes it pays to get into the fray, instead of sitting back and watching.
BuckHill says:
13 September 2009 at 12:52 pm
_______________________
Extremely well said. Daubry says “[c]hanging Washington does not mean not leading.” Fair enough. But that’s not what BuckHill’s comment went to. The comment was made in response to the observation that “Obama lacks the fear factor.” And the point is, leadership based on fear and partisanship is not what Obama is about. It’s not what this country needs. And, given the last eight years, it’s very bewildering to hear Americans — much less Democrats — wax nostalgic for that kind of leadership style. I, for one, didn’t just have a problem with Bush’s ideas; I also had a problem with the way he and Cheney forced those ideas on us.
Republicans don’t fear him, and obviously don’t respect him either…
I know partisanship is not what he’s about, we’ve had this convo. and we’ll always have to just agree to disagree.
The problem with Bush/Cheney wasn’t procedural it was substantive.
it’s not how they did the things they things (well except for willfull ineptitude in prosecuting wars). It’s that they did the things they did; it’s WHAT they did.
President Bush also ate meals and opened doors to go through them and such. I assume we expect President Obama to do those things also, even though they were done by the Evils?
autumnal says:
13 September 2009 at 10:16 pm
The problem with Bush/Cheney wasn’t procedural it was substantive.
______________________________________
Not true — it was both. Indeed, you could argue that Bush was correct about many substantive things, but it was precisely his means that were the problem. For example, we do need to promote democracy in the Middle East. Just not at the barrel of a gun. We did need to update our means for gathering intelligence. But by legislative action, not presidential fiat. It is vitally important that we not fall for the siren song of adopting Republican tactics to Democratic ends.
well I see promoting democracy at the point of a gun as a substantive policy choice.
It’s not that anyone’s saying the Obama Administration should subvert the Constitution with signing statements, or 1000s of lies. Barring the end runs around the Constitution, Bush/Cheney admin achieved their (woefully flawed) agenda with great success. So as far as that goes, yes I would expect the Obama Administration to emulate that.
Using the totality of crimes to still doesn’t discredit actual ability in using the political system to advance ones agenda just doesn’t work. The Bush administration was wrong on so many things because it was so effective on getting its way on so many things. All people want is an administration that is just as effective at getting its way with the important element of getting it right.
meant to quote Harvey Fierstein at the end there: “Is that soooo wrong!”