Archive for category 2012 Presidential Race

I Don’t Know. The Administration Has Seemed Pretty Shovel-Ready To Me From Day 1.

By now, you’ve probably seen this rueful admission by President Obama – evidently part of a longer comedy routine – that the stimulus didn’t actually do much the stimulate:

Over at Powerline, Scott Johnson takes Obama to task for laughing at unemployment, and imagines Obama & Immelt as the new Hope & Crosby, and suggests The Road to Tripoli as a working title for their first picture.  I was thinking The Road to Serfdom or The Road to Ruin, myself.

In all seriousness, though, isn’t this just a president who realizes he has a real vulnerability, and is trying to laugh at it, at his own error?  Is this reallly all that different from Bush pretending to search the Oval Office for the WMDs, the video for the White House Press Dinner that had the lefties in a snit a few years back?

Obama’s lousy at it, because he takes himself too seriously, and really can’t laugh at himself.  I’ve never seen him do it, anyway.  Bush had great comedic timing and a real sense of humility.

Of course, as an indictment of his competence, it’s far worse than Bush’s joke.  Bush’s knowledge was limited to what his intelligence apparatus brought him, his perceptions were shared by the rest of the world.  Many argued against going into Iraq, but virtually nobody thought Saddam wasn’t building or maintaining an arsenal of WMDs.

Obama not only got the macro wrong (Germany, for instance, has made different fiscal choices), but also, in the most generous interpretation of these comments, didn’t even bother to do due diligence about where the next couple of generations’ money was going when he spent it.  A less generous interpretation – consistent with the Alinskyite acolyte – is that he knew perfectly well that it was going to bureaucrats, and now wants to be seen as fixing the problems that he himself created.

The press conference was the rollout of the first half of Obama’s so-called Jobs & Competitiveness Council, the “fast action” steps, in favored courtier co-chair Jeffrey Immelt’s words.  But that’s for another post.

,

No Comments

Taking Their Victory Lap in a Clown Car

Yes, I know, he’s right there in that photograph of the senior staff watching the bin Laden operation on the live feed.  (Think about that for a moment.  We’re commemorating the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. Lincoln used to spend a lot of time over at the War Department Telegraph Office waiting for scraps of war news from a couple of hundred miles away.  Nowadays he could just dial up a live feed from anywhere on the planet.)

And now, two apparently inside stories indicating that the President either didn’t get around to making an actual decision, or took 16 hours to do so.

I have no idea how much to credit these stories (although it would fit in with at least one fellow’s relatively generous reading of Obama’s presidency).  Politically, it is remarkable that within 72 hours of the President’s first only real accomplishment, someone inside the White House is putting about stories designed to undermine the President for that very accomplishment?

Typically, this sort of thing would take weeks to develop.  The fellow in question would want to see how the polls were moving, whether or not there was traction.  Right now, in the warm afterglow of the already-room-temperature remains, would be the last time you’d expect an insider to go around putting knives in the back of the Hero of Abbottabad.  This should be a moment when Obama begins to turn things around, and instead, you’ve got British newspapers and American blogs making the President out to be a spectator at his own presidency.

William Daley was supposed to provide gravitas, professionalism, stability, and order to a White House Staff that was looking terribly undisciplined.  Instead, while the operation itself was brilliantly done, they’ve gotten just about everything since wrong.  From the changing stories, to the photographs, to the disposal of the body, to the speech itself.  That along with announcing an intelligence bonanza to the world, “the world” including our enemies.  No, I don’t think they’re lying about what happened; those images can move awfully fast, and it’s just normal fog-of-war stuff; but why rush out with a story you’re going to have to correct?  Why dither for two days about whether or not to release the death scene photographs?  In short, they’re “taking their victory lap in a clown car.”

There’s a point in a market, when it’s near it’s top, that even good news isn’t good news.  Strong earnings reports, hiring reports, strong consumer confidence, all get shrugged aside because there’s a feeling that the market just has no upside to it.  When you have some experience with the market, sometimes you can sniff that out, and let me tell you, it’s a great time to be in cash.

I wonder if something similar isn’t going on here with this President.  They were fond of deriding their predecessors for having won the war, but not having a plan for the peace.  In this case, they won the assault, but didn’t have a plan for the rest of the piece.  As a result, someone inside the Administration isn’t afraid of putting knives in his boss’s back, even when you’d think it would be a good time to lay low and start spiriting out your diaries for a book deal.

For a politician, especially an executive, that’s abbottabad as it gets.

,

No Comments

The Day After

It goes without saying that it’s a very good thing. It isn’t VE-Day or VJ-Day, and Americans have enough sense not to treat it as such, but it’s worth one night’s jubilation. This day resolution was a long time coming, and Americans have the right to blow off a little steam. This is, after all, what closure looks like.

Although Obama didn’t plan or execute the operation, he did have to give the Go order, and failure of the operation could have been catastrophic. He had to burn some of the few remaining bridges we have with our nominal “ally” Pakistan, which seems to be drifting into China’s orbit, further heightening the risk.

But then, we’re faced with the Left’s desire to turn this into a partisan victory, almost even before the President made his remarks.

Is it really? Maybe  not.

While Obama called former President Bush to tell him the news, he failed to even recognize his efforts in all but the most oblique terms. It continues a pattern of smallness and narcissism that have characterized this President. My friends on the right, who made fun of the birthers by demanding Osama’s Long-Form Death Certificate, showed more class than Obama.

One moment of clarity and gutsiness doesn’t in itself reverse over 2 years of fecklessness, and both our allies and our enemies know it. This should be a moment to seize the initiative in various theaters of operation, but it does not appear that Obama will do so. Instead, it now looks as though last week’s national security personnel moves are designed to retreat from the battlefield and press others to do so. (If not, we’ll soon see some serious pressure on Assad & Syria. If so, look for talk of “rapidly-closing windows of opportunity” for Israel to make concessions.)

The temptation to use bin Laden’s execution as an excuse to leave Afghanistan now, a leaning echoed in some isolationist quarters last night, must be great. But to jump to that conclusion would be to trivialize a major civilizational conflict into a south Asian version of the Hatfields and McCoys.

There was little if any indication in his speech of the context of the broader struggle, as one against radical or political Islam (as opposed to Islam as a personal religion); rather it was solely about alQaeda. The threat of jihad from the Muslim Brotherhood, and from Iran and its various catspaws went unmentioned or even unhinted-at. Does anyone believe that Obama better understands or is now more willing to confront those threats or the murderous ideology behind them?

Indeed, our treatment of bin Laden’s body more than suggests not. While we all had a good time thinking of the uses to which it could be put, most of us (I hope) were joking about torch relays, carnival dunk tanks, and heads-on-a-pike. As solutions go, burial at sea wasn’t a bad one. It was sufficiently but not overly disdainful, and deprives followers of a shrine. (It reminds me of Churchill’s legendary telegraphic response when told that his mother-in-law had died: “Autopsy, Cremate, Bury at Sea. Leave Nothing to Chance.”)

But the need to announce that we were following Islamic law in disposing of the body is of a piece with having our soldiers in Guantanamo handle the Koran only with clean white gloves. It’s one thing to be respectful of the religious sensibilities of our friends, or even neutrals; quite another to give our enemies reason to believe that we acquiesce to their place for us in their murderous ideology.

You can only do that if you’re not really convinced that you’re up against a murderous ideology. Iran only wants regional hegemony, and Ahmedinejad isn’t suicidal. The Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda never got along, so the MB isn’t a threat. (See the reaction of their spawn, Hamas, to bin Laden’s execution.) It recycles all the comfortable complacencies of the Cold War, and it’s as wrong now as it was then.

It would be foolish to say that nothing’s changed, but it would be equally mistaken to think that too much has. Today’s markets are a fine example. They opened higher on the news, and quickly reverted to form on actual fundamentals. The fundamentals of the enemy we face haven’t changed. The fundamentals of the economy haven’t changed.

The 2012 elections are still worth holding. The poll numbers of George HW Bush right after Gulf War I, and George W Bush after capturing Saddam, were both quite high before subsequent events brought them back down to earth. As Crash Davis said, “The moment’s over.”

This week, many Americans, most of them not college students, will fill their cars with $4 gasoline and drive 10 miles out of their way to a Sam’s Club in a struggle to stay within budget. The risk of stagflation is quite real, and the President seems no more serious about dealing with the long-term fiscal threats to the country than he is about dealing with our external enemies.

If bin Laden’s execution is the beginning of a new seriousness, more than an opportunity to pose, well then good. If it’s merely an opportunity to withdraw from the field while looking good, to claim a victory when our enemy doesn’t feel beaten, then it’s no good at all.

With a President who still seems intellectually and emotionally committed to American decline, I’m not optimistic.

No Comments

Petraeus-Panetta Pavane Pensees

My first reaction is that this is good for Obama, politically, bad for Afghanistan, as good for defense as can be expected, and bad for Petraeus.  (The CIA being impervious to reform, hardly rates a good-bad mention.)

Bad for Petraeus: He probably was exhausted after close to 10 years in the field, but he should have been JCS Chief.  True, working in counter-insurgency requires a lot of facility with operational intelligence, so it’s not completely a fish out of water.  But the CIA does much more well-hedged intelligence “analysis,” most of it bad, than it does actual intelligence-gathering and use.  Petraeus has directed the war in two theaters, and deserves a chance to apply what he’s learned to the military as a whole.  It’s hard to escape the thought that Obama is sidelining someone he’s afraid of politically, even though Petraeus has repeatedly disavowed political ambition.  That’s why it’s

Good for Obama Politically: He can put a purported rival in a position to fail (who was the last actually successful DCI?), keep him from speaking with authority as he spends energy navigating a bureaucratic and political jungle.  Panetta will probably be at home (enough) in Defense, and will be on the President’s side there.

Good for Defense: At least in terms of not having an empty suit or someone likely to wreck the place or take on unnecessary fights.  Panetta’s not a fool, but he was in over his head at CIA.  His job will be to manage the Carter-like hollowing-out of DoD, which Obama’s successor will have to fix.  But he’s unlikely to roll over completely, and will at least bring an outsider’s eye to the job.

No Comments

Let The Narrative Define The Candidate

Very quickly, the flagship Ricochet podcast has joined my favorite weekly listening.  A couple of weeks ago, Pat Caddell was the guest, and as usual, the pragmatic, tell-it-like-he-sees it Democrat pollster was a font of helpful advice for Republicans, all of which is worth listening to.  This particular bit stuck out: he suggested that the Republicans need to settle on a narrative first, and then the proper candidate will rise to the narrative.  It’s an interesting thought, and one worth considering.

His strategic advice is predicated on the notion – facts, really – that time is shorter than we think, and that the narrative for the election will be set this year, not next.  I think he’s probably right on this.  People’s opinions on Obama – and presidential re-elections are always first about the incumbent – are already being cemented, and the cement is starting to cure.  You see it in the “who do you trust more on X issue?” polling, on the right-track/wrong-track question, on a general atmosphere of incompetence and disconnect.

The Dems and the MSM (but I repeat myself) will try their hardest to shape the narrative this year to their advantage.  You see this in the stepped-up union activity, the attempt to frame the budget fight.  How both Wisconsin and the debt ceiling/budget fight play out, along with the continuing court battles over Obamacare (are you listening, Rep Stephens?) will be major factors in how these impressions solidify.  The specific issues, and the framing of those issues as “budget-cutting” vs. “growth-enhancing,” as an example, will also make a huge difference.  And even if we don’t know what particular economic or foreign policy details will be on people’s minds in 2012, the right narrative can absorb a wide variety of specifics and surprises.

By deciding on the narrative first, we determine the basis on which we’ll fight the election, we set out priorities and a vision of what’s right and wrong for the country, and where we want to lead it and see it led.

Read the rest of this entry »

No Comments