We're still months away from most Americans paying any attention to the campaign. Since Newt Gingrich ended his wacky zoo tour, disappointing bereaved vampire bats everywhere, the summer contest has been fairly dull. It will likely be decided by a number of factors the president has little control over, like whether Europe still owns its cafés and tourist attractions in November. (There may not be enough gondola rides and croissants in the world to stabilize the fiscal situation.) But we can't afford to allow externalities to keep us from evaluating the president's first term. Now that the NBA playoffs have ended, it's either that, or melting into a puddle outside.
Political strategists often fixate on "the expectations game," and how a candidate can upend conventional wisdom with a debate performance, or a primary, or a Katie Couric interview. The most peculiar thing about Obama Term I has been its subversion of the electorate's expectations. Barack Obama the president has largely failed where Barack Obama the candidate was meant to succeed, and thrived where he was meant to flounder.
Obama's downside was always supposed to be a kitten-like naiveté when it came to foreign policy. In an otherwise glowing '08 editorial endorsement that makes Jerry Maguire's "You Complete Me" speech look like a bitch-slap, the New York Times conceded that "Mr. Obama would have a learning curve on foreign affairs." He was meant to be soft; unwilling to take the brutal measures that would keep America safe; and, particularly compared to his opponent in McCain, too inexperienced to be commander-in-chief.
Yet the president has been "fierce," and even Republicans concede that foreign affairs has turned out to be Obama's strength. You wouldn't necessarily call him a hawk, but that's only because hawks have to actually dive-bomb to ground level to kill their prey. Obama's predator drones are more like hawks with scopes mounted on their heads, like the laser-beam-strapped sharks Dr. Evil tries to use on Austin Powers. Al-Qaeda's organization is in shambles, and its leader, of course, decomposing next to fish turds in the Arabian Sea. Obama made the decision to expand the burgeoning fleet of aerial weapons, and they've been a national security miracle, keeping Americans safe, but also out of harms way -- talons unnecessary. On Presidential Priority Number One, therefore, Barack Obama has aced the test.
Detractors will gripe that Obama has allowed Iran to stall as they enrich isotopes beneath the earth. Yes, negotiations have been maddening, but, in reality, the administration has employed a number of tactics to frustrate Tehran, not the least of which has been the creative use of cyber warfare in cahoots with a mysterious, secret ally (I'm guessing it's Sweden). Sanctions are taking their toll, and a critical EU oil embargo still has to go into effect this summer. We may look back on this period and thank the gods for Obama's patient prudence.
The president also doesn't get enough credit for his handling of the Arab Spring. Oftentimes it's not only what a president does, but what he doesn't do: it could have been easy for the U.S. to heavily intervene in Egypt, Tunisia, or even Syria as they countries spiraled into frightening chaos. Many presidents not as fond of acronyms like N.A.T.O. would have sent the marines into Cairo or Damascus, sinking us back into another Middle Eastern quicksand we could not afford. (It isn't that tough to topple autocrats and install puppet regimes -- it's all we did during the Cold War -- but it's risky business.) And when it seemed doable for a reasonable price, Obama tipped the scales against Qaddafi at the U.N. Right-wing pundits can beat their chests at barbeques and bark about "leading from behind" in Libya, but the other phrase for that is sheer efficiency -- a mission accomplished with zero American casualties.
But ironically, the president has been foiled at delivering on his primary pitch from 2008: he has failed at moving the country with his agenda, failed at building compromise, and failed at uniting the nation's political factions. As that same New York Times editorial put it: "We believe he has the will and the ability to forge the broad political consensus that is essential to finding solutions to this nation's problems."
Sheath your sword. I'm aware of the GOP's intransigence. No Congress has been more unwilling, as a rule, to work with an executive, and the Republicans' role in preventing the country from tackling critical issues like climate change, the deficit, and immigration cannot be overlooked. But, to be fair, this is the job Obama signed up for, and he won the country's heart by convincing it that he was different -- special -- in his capacity to bring the country together. That's how an inexperienced senator overtakes a Clintonian juggernaut: he convinces the nation that he can do things other polarizing candidates with the same policies can't. But Change We Can Believe In was never, in that respect, really Change We Should Believe In.
Real leadership isn't a matter of working with those eager to cooperate; it's about finding ways to make them work with you when they are uneager. The Obama White House's greatest failure was that it had no Plan B. It expected the honeymoon others have gained from an electoral landslide; it expected that congressional Republicans would embrace Obama's achievement, or at least honor his mandate with good-faith cooperation. But after the delirious crowds in Grant Park, and after the bright inauguration, when it came time to offer Obama help on his first major piece of legislation -- a plan to get the economy going with a stimulus package, the GOP members looked across the table and basically said, "So what?"
The White House had no answer for the "what if they blow us off?" contingency, and proved inadequate at either effectively exposing the Republican obstruction;or communicating its core message to the American people.
When the stimulus package passed with zero Republican House votes, the mood was set for Obama's first term: a period of steady leadership on the international stage, with unholy domestic discord at home.
So it's been an unexpected few years. How will a referendum play out for an executive whose weaknesses and strengths have turned upside down since he came to power? Tough to say.
Follow Ben Zweifach on Twitter: www.twitter.com/BenZwei
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
With +8% unemployment, 1.9% snail's-pace growth, a $15.6T debt (which he's added $5T to in a mere three-and-a-half years), an historic downgrade, and flagship legislation that the majority of Americans never wanted passed in the first place, and still want repealed, and which is about to go down the constitutional crapper, I'd say O is a one-and-doner.
And I am as with as they come wanna c by robe and hood
Remember when republicans tried to blame him for the oil spill and subsequent recovery? In hindsight it was managed as well as any human could expect.
Now that prices of oil are dropping, will republicans say the President is responsible for that too? Or is this President only responsible for when things go poorly?
Nor does he mention the Koch Brothers, the Wall Street Banksters, or the power of money.
As a student from the Yale Law school, Zweifach should really have done a better job of analyzing these realities. The 2012 election is reall a referendum on what sort of people we are and what sort of country we want to live in,one where the economy works for everyone or a country run exclusively for the 1 %
I suppose for a graduate from Yale will always find a 6 or 7 digit job. But that rule doesn't apply to the 99 %.
Obama/Romney; same coin; different sides.
Yes, ironically because it is the President who ‘foiled’ himself at delivering on his campaign promises. Ben, you are seeing the use of his newly minted and substantial political capital being wasted in the political sphere. A reasonable argument. However, the President holds the exclusive authority to exploit the laws of the land toward efforts consistent with his campaign promises. Aside from the recent immigration tact, the President has failed to engage the authority of the office. This is especially noticeable in the regulation, investigation or subsequent prosecution of the finance / banking sector’s bad actors; addressing systemically dangerous institutions; or even making the important case for fixing the underlying causes of our economic debacle through effective regulation.
Can the President wage war without Congressional approval?
Can the President order the killing of a US citizen without due process?
I and many others personally happen to believe the answer to both of those Qs is No under the Art. I Congressional 'declare war' clause and the 5th amendment. That being said, it obviously depends on what you define a war as. Even though there's no official legal consensus, the mainstream position is that the President can introduce very limited forces into combat situations that are not meant to last very long without going to Congress for a declaration of war (in fact, even if it's a larger invasion, modern times do not require the official Constitutional declaration, merely some version of approval (like the Authorization for the Use of Force post 9/11)...if it's a longer term, more intense hostilities, then approval is required. There is gray area, for example with Libya, where the Executive says the engagement is limited/there wont be lots of casualties/not that intense fighting, but Congress isn't happy; and in those situations, War Powers Resolution requirements often kick in (look up War Powers statute). On question 2, I don't believe the President does have that authority, but the current Administration's position is that when that citizen is an enemy combatant (for example fighting for Al Qaeda), then they have as little protection as if they are foreign-born, and thus, can be taken out with drones, etc.
Is that in the US Constitution?
- but the current Administration's position is that when that citizen is an enemy combatant (for example fighting for Al Qaeda), then they have as little protection as if they are foreign-born, and thus, can be taken out with drones, etc.
It's one thing if someone is an enemy combatant; and other if there are only allegations of a crime. Was Anwar al-Awlaki in a battle with a weapon?
question 2 making war against the US, makes you an enemy combatant. You can't then expect due process..
How many soldiers lives should be put in jeopardy to bring a combatant to court whose only goal is to kill Americans.
Obama put republicans and their 100% obstruction in the curious position to advocate for due process for terrorist
After Obama was sworn in as POTUS I was willing to accept him and had high hopes he would be a great president. But when he proposed the stimulus package, I knew we were in trouble. There were all kinds of objections to the spending during the Bush administration. And now it is OK for Obama to spend even more? What the bleep? And where did this multiple page piece of legislation come from, so quickly, and who drafted it? Unbelieveable!
Some will argue the stimulus package was of benefit. But where are all the jobs it promised, and why has our unemployment rate continued to be above 8%? All that money spent (nearly a trillion dollars) and with such poor results.
Instead of concentrating on improving the economy, Obama's next step was to push through the health care bill. Another unpopular move. His presidency has gone downhill ever since. And he has been a big dissappointment.
The GOP on the very day pres Obama was sworn in, Jan 20, 2009, Frank Luntz, Newton Gingrich, Tom Colburn, Eric Cantor and 18 other GOPers met for 4 plus hours to plan and plot a political Coup 'd tat against pres Obama who had just inherited a Nation in the harshest economic meltdown...near depression since the great depression. Those same forces have not stopped. They are still going on strong......obstructing and getting totally rewarded by the national media and the rightwing electorate.
Facts matter.
Pacific Free Trade Agreement - the secrecy of it all.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/TP-FTA-Flyer-11-10.pdf
I wrote this comment months ago. Get informed and join the fight:visittradewatch.organd/orcontactPublicCitizen’sGlobalTrade Watch Field Team at gtwinfo@citizen.org or call us at 202.454.5140.
Contact your Senators, Representatives, and state legislators: ask them to demand that the Obama administration stop pushing a Trans-Pacific FTA corporate power tool agenda that slams us 99 percenters.
Write Pres. Obama: tell him that we can’t afford to allow this deal to become another job-killing,
unsafe-import-flooding, democracy-crushing NAFTA-style trade deal.
You've seen all the hand-wringers and teeth gnashers about the secrecy of it all; it's that way for a REASON.
Congress wouldn't be able to order lunch if the President was taking the orders; they'd rather starve.
Can you imagine if all 535 threw in their 2 cents about every single item?