Browse > Home / Archive by category 'The Weekly Standard'

| Subcribe via RSS

Profile Image of John Cronin
John Cronin

Obama’s Quirks

March 13th, 2009 | 3 Comments | Posted in Barack Obama, Fred Barnes, The Weekly Standard

http:/www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/260gvfkl.asp

What we’ve learned about our new president.

By: Fred Barnes

Now that Barack Obama has been president for seven weeks, we’ve learned a few more things about him. Like every president, Obama has quirks. Or maybe we should call them characteristics or tendencies that we hadn’t expected. Here are a five of them:

1. Delegate and duck. Who’d have thought the fellow famous for his brains and tough-minded leadership would hand over much of his agenda to Democrats in Congress? Not I. This practice began with Obama’s first piece of legislation, the economic “stimulus” package. It was mostly put together by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who touted it as an economic game-changer. The actual result? A wave of fear it won’t work. Even economists friendly to Democrats told Pelosi this week that the measure won’t come close to meeting Obama’s goal of saving or creating up to 4 million jobs. Pelosi is now talking up a second stimulus package.

Given that experience, you might think Obama would be leery of giving congressional Democrats the more important job of drafting a massive health care reform bill. Not so. He’s given them exactly that assignment. True, there may be a clever strategy behind his habit of delegating. If Democrats draft a bill, they’re likely to pass it. Or perhaps Obama is just afraid of crossing Pelosi.

They’ll have trouble, however, with a touchy moral issue Obama ducked when he lifted the ban on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. That issue: cloning of embryos for research, so-called therapeutic cloning. Obama also ducked the matter of where to stash unrepentant terrorists once the prison at Guantanamo is shut down on his orders next year. And he’s letting a task force determine what’s proper in interrogating terrorists.

2. Doing the opposite. Obama insists he’s not in favor of big government, then proposes a 10-year budget with vast amounts of new spending and a vastly expanded role for government. He denounces distractions that keep everyone from focusing on significant issues, but his White House aides cause a huge controversy by calling Rush Limbaugh the leader of the Republican party. He promises bipartisanship but doesn’t practice it. He’s against earmarks but refuses to call on Congress to strip them from the “omnibus” spending bill. He’s the enemy of “business as usual” in Washington, but the way he conducts his presidency is business as usual. He’s for making “tough choices,” but doesn’t make many. He’s for “fiscal responsibility” but . . . well, you get the drift.

3. Loose ship. Obama ran the most spectacularly well organized and brilliantly managed presidential campaign I’ve ever seen. And his transition was rightly praised for its orderliness. I don’t offer that praise lightly. But once he arrived in the White House, Obama has operated anything but a tight ship. He hasn’t filled major posts at the Treasury Department, allowing Secretary Tim Geithner to be cast by the media as a lonely and forlorn figure. He inadvertently treated British prime minister Gordon Brown as if he’s the leader of Sri Lanka or Surinam, causing Brown deep embarrassment at home and damaging the “special relationship” between the United Kingdom and America. His high-level nominees–some of them–continue to be folks with unpaid taxes. His vice president, Joe Biden, can’t stop uttering dubious statements, the latest being his claim that 70 percent of Taliban forces are in it for the money. Did Gallup poll them?

4. Blame game. This is one of the rituals of Washington that Obama was going to halt. Instead, he’s indulged. After an interview with the New York Times last week, he called back to respond further to a question about whether he’s a socialist. “It was hard for me to believe that you were serious about that socialist question,” he said, then went on to lay the blame for expanding government on President Bush. “It wasn’t under me that we started buying a bunch of shares of banks,” Obama noted. “And it wasn’t on my watch that we passed a massive new entitlement, the prescription drug plan without a source of funding.” Obama didn’t mention that he supports the bank bailout and his party backed a more expensive version of the drug plan.

5. Straw man. Obama has been criticized for using this rhetorical device. But he can’t stop himself. He’s often declared he won’t deal with those, presumably congressional Republicans, who would do nothing at all to boost the economy. But Republicans would do something, just not what he has. When he made his stem cell announcement, Obama said he was protecting scientists from “manipulation or coercion,” listening to them “even when it’s inconvenient,” making sure “scientific data is never distorted or concealed,” and basing “scientific decisions based on facts, not ideology.” Whew! But who was doing all those things? Nobody, though Obama seemed to be suggesting the Bush administration had.

Okay, these quirks are nothing to brag about. And Obama has some admirable characteristics as well. But I don’t need to cite them. The mainstream media has beaten me to the punch, spreading word of Obama’s fine points to the far ends of the globe.

Fred Barnes is executive editor of THE WEEKLY STANDARD.

Share on Facebook

Tags:

Profile Image of Brent Koch
Brent Koch

…Head to Head Polls…

I am in wonderment as to why the MSM pays any attention to the Head to Head polls when we have not even finished the primaries. I know that it is fun for them to speculate and it makes news, but polls on this national level mean nothing. If I was to look at this logically why would we, as the republican party, want to send McCain up against Hillary. Politically it would be like a Brother and Sister running against each other for President of the U.S. Are we so blind that we cannot see that rotating chairs in Washington with people that have been their for so many years is not a good idea. Why do you think that the most successful coporations higher their CEO from outside unless they were groomed specicially for the role. This process would not take 30 years. OOOOOOOOh I forgot this is washington, not the real world…

Brent

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of David Kim
David Kim

A Time for Choosing

Dean Barnett of the Weekly Standard writes an insightful piece drawing an analogy between the Huck-a-boom and Pat Buchannan’s 1986 run against Bob Dole. I recommend reading it all, but here are some key excerpts:

Mike Huckabee is this cycle’s Pat Buchanan. A lot of Republicans wanted to believe that he was the answer to the flawed deck of frontrunners that the political gods have dealt us. I can’t honestly say I was ever rooting for Huckabee, but a month ago I expected him to win the nomination. All he had to do was come across as a credible commander-in-chief for the five weeks leading up to Iowa and he would have pulled it off.

But Huckabee went the Buchanan route. Rather than assure the Republican electorate that he was more than a one trick pony who could speak beautifully on social issues and spiritual concerns, he doubled down on his pastor side. Perhaps with good cause. When he ventured opinions about serious policy matters outside his comfort zone, especially regarding global affairs, he showed an ignorance that was quite frankly stunning for someone who had the audacity to seek the presidency at a time of war.

And there’s also Huckabee’s past. Every politician has a past–issues he flip-flopped on or positions he took that his party dislikes. But Huckabee’s past has caused Republicans to remember the Arkansas mores that drove us nuts during the Clinton years. Seemingly every day, another piece of, er, stuff, hits the fan. Over the weekend, it came out that Huckabee received $35,000 in honoraria in 2006 from a company that does stem cell research, the very same company that social conservatives blasted Mitt Romney over because his blind trust had invested in it. Huckabee’s take of $35,000 from the stem cell researchers was but a small sliver of the roughly $378,000 in outside fees that Huckabee raked in during his final year as Arkansas’ governor. Too bad he didn’t have Hillary Clinton’s facility with commodities trading–such a skill probably would have made things easier for Huckabee.

Barnett goes on to predict that Romney will win Iowa and that he will be able to seal the nomination if he can sieze the moment and deliver a serious, substantive speech that sets him above the rest of the field.

Barnett cites Ronald Regan’s famous 1976 “A Time for Choosing” speech as an example of the type of speech Mitt must follow. As I watched it (embedded below), I was struck at how relevant his words remain to our current geo-political situation.

I was also struck by how much it reminded me of a certain other Conservative Republican candidate for the Presidency…

Mitt’s speech at CPAC remains one of his best. It helped cement my support for Mitt Romney in the early days of the campaign. It feels like an eternity since he first delivered it back in March. If you haven’t seen it, please watch it. If you’ve seen it before, it is well worth watching again.

This is, indeed, a time for choosing. Choose Mitt!

Sponsor and ad in Iowa, South Carolina, Florida, or New Hampshire!

Share on Facebook

Profile Image of Thomas Alan
Thomas Alan

The Man Who Wants to Fix Washington

November 17th, 2007 | Comments Off | Posted in The Weekly Standard

Gov. Romney made the cover of the Weekly Standard this week with a piece from Fred Barnes. The premise of the piece was Gov. Romney’s business background and how the strengths and skills he learned building his small empire would have shaped his candidacy and will shape his presidency.

The Romney way is very simple. It consists of attacking a problem or considering an issue or policy through vigorous debate, with dissenting opinions encouraged and outside advice eagerly sought, and relying on as much hard data as possible. At the end of the process, the leader makes a decision that may or may not coincide with the “vision” or “concept” or “framework”–Romney’s words–that initiated the discussion in the first place.

Here’s how Romney describes the process:

You diagnose the problem. You put the right team together to solve the problem. You listen to alternative viewpoints. You insist on gathering data before you make decisions and analyze the data looking for trends. The result of this process is, you hope, that you make better decisions. You typically also have processes in place to see if it’s working or not working, and you make adjustments from time to time.

That’s it. Romney loves the give-and-take. “I have to see conflict,” he says. “The last thing you want is people coming in saying ‘We all agree. Here’s the recommendation.’ I know I don’t want to proceed on that basis.” As governor of Massachusetts, Romney balked at extending Boston’s mass transit system until he’d heard the case against it. Once he had, he decided to approve the extension.

**********

And he’s used it to fashion a blueprint for his presidential campaign. Romney weighed alternatives before adopting the early primary strategy of concentrating on the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire on the assumption that he must win one or both of them to spur his candidacy and win the nomination. He’s stuck to that strategy. Romney decided how much money his campaign needs to spend rather than how much it must raise. If there’s a gap (and there has been), it would be filled by Romney’s personal funds.

One more thing. Romney believes getting the right people on your team is crucial. “I like smart people,” he wrote in Turnaround, his chronicle of saving the Winter Olympics. “Bill Bain, my old boss, used to joke that most things can be fixed, but smart–or dumb–is forever.” Romney has a knack for persuading smart people to leave lucrative jobs to work for him for less pay.

~~~Thomas

Share on Facebook


[ Copy this | Start New | Full Size ]