At the President's press conference in Lisbon Saturday Margaret Warner from PBS asked him to comment on Republican opposition to ratification of the START Treaty. Instead of delivering a punch, Mr. Obama stammered for half of the entire press conference trying to answer the question.
God, I thought, is he really going to continue down this path?
A source close to the Administration has insisted to me that a televised address to the nation was in the offing next week. That's looking like a pipe dream. Certainly it would be a reasoned tactic in light of the pressing business before the Congress. The President might seek to reclaim the stage and lay the groundwork for his priorities during the lame-duck session. The American public has done so according to a Gallup Poll released today.
The Administration does not grasp that the second half of Mr. Obama's presidency began the day after the midterms. There is an abundance of legislation which the President's base expects to come before the lame-duck session. Mr. Obama does not enjoy the luxury of time- as he and Mr. Biden embark on a low-key, photo-op White House to Main Street tour but two days prior to Thanksgiving. In Texas that's whatchya call all hat no cattle leadership.
The President is not seizing the moment to confront the GOP by drawing lines in the sand. The opportunities to do so abound.
Fiscal priorities. The President should stick to his guns on extending the Bush tax cuts only to the lower 98th percentile making less than $250,000. Let the Republicans explain to an outraged middle-class America why they support making the wealthiest wealthier- and bumping the deficit up over the next decade by $700 billion. It is a no brainer for the President to adopt a "my-deal or no-deal" posture consistent with the principles on which he ran. At the same time, extending unemployment benefits to the long-term unemployed who are grasping for a lifeline does not face strong public resistance.
The START Treaty. Senator Kyl (R-AZ) as lead negotiator for the GOP has tossed any number of red herrings along the pathway to Senate ratification. The President knows GOP support in the Senate is taking cover behind Mr. Kyl. Last week Mr. Obama rolled out GOP heavyweights supporting ratification including former Secretary of States Henry Kissinger and James Baker III and former President G.H.W. Bush's National Security Advisor General Brent Scowcroft.
Why confront Kyl now? The President has plenty of political cover in making the case for a sense of urgency to engaging Russia as a partner in confronting Iran's nuclear ambitions. To do so, the US must have skin in the game. The North Koreans just handed the President an ace up his sleeve with Saturday's revelation that the rogue nation has built a covert, state-of-the art nuclear plant which is already enriching uranium and yesterday's unprovoked bombing of the South Koreans.
Should the GOP stand firm against ratification, they assume ownership of undermining global security and failing to support a sacred cow of former President Reagan: 'trust but verify.'
The DREAM Act. The President has to push hard for passage of the DREAM Act. He must assert the Democratic Party as most friendly to the burgeoning Hispanic voting population- something coveted by Democrats and Republicans alike. It's a win/win situation for President Obama. If the DREAM Act is not passed this year the GOP takes a hit with Hispanic voters. Should the GOP impede enactment, the 112th Congress which takes office in January cannot introduce immigration legislation of any sort without cracking the fault lines between Tea Party and mainstream Republicans.
DADT. The President has to choose whether he will visibly lead a hard fight and risk losing, or remain a limp supporter willing to lose without fighting at all (to borrow from George Soros.) How Mr. Obama games this issue will be a litmus test of his leadership and integrity. He has fooled no one with his call for process-driven repeal while his Department of Justice simultaneously litigates against the very legislation he purports to support.
The consequence of losing the vote to repeal DADT will be to escalate a war against his base- a war he neither wants to nor should be fighting. LGBT Americans are increasingly defiant after decades of gratuitous Democratic leaders calling for patience in gaining civil rights. Gay people are no longer willing to exist in limbo without the civil rights that first class Americans enjoy. Count me among them.
The SPLC released a survey today which reports that for well over a decade, homosexuals, or those perceived to be gay, are more than twice as likely to be attacked in a violent hate crime. That's not surprising to me; it underscores the damage that state-sanctioned discrimination has inflicted on gay Americans. The reality is that it is not getting better- certainly not since my son had the hell beaten out of him 11 years ago because his father was gay.
I love traveling across America. I talk a lot and listen more. I'm a never-met-a-stranger sort. There is a common thread to what I hear from the President's supporters and critics alike: he's weak. Americans are insecure with a President who relies on leading by blunt reason. We prefer fighters with bare-knuckled moxie. I haven't a doubt in the world that the critical imperative for Mr. Obama is to get tough immediately.
In southern vernacular, y'all will know the President is stepping up his game when you hear his critics uttering 'well, I don't like the SOB. But I gotta admit he's got balls.'
How he tackles the backlog of unfinished business in the dwindling weeks before the 111th Congress adjourns may well be the defining moment in his presidency.
Follow Jim Neal on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JNealNC
Obama may be doing as best as he can, but he has had no charisma since becoming President. That is why America is going to get stuck with bird brain Palin.
The President said- quoted on a post hereon- that he "respects her political skills." That is pretty chilling. In and indirect way he legitamized her. Why the hell I do not know. Last night, the guest host of The Rachael Maddow Show (forgot his name) commented on the unrelenting coverage she was receiving from "the media." Hello? CNBC is media!
And- I watched her being interviewed the other evening. She's stepped up her game tremendously. Skewer her at will; but she's much sharper on her feet than she was two years ago. She's the one who's throwing the hardest punches right now- and is getting 24x7 coverage.
I think Bloomberg could win (in 2012) if he ran as either a Republican or a Democrat. The 3rd party route probably would help the Republican candidate.
Why yes Mr Neal, yes he is.
If that's the case what should we be serving for Thanksgiving?
Secondly, of his supporters feel abandoned by Obama. They expected him to take the inspiration he he engendered during his campaign to the White House and to do big things. He has not met those expectations, and I argue he has not done so because of his hesitancy or inability to lead.
Lastly, Dr. King never lead a nation or passed legislation. He had an ally in the White House, one many considered an unlikely one at that, in President Johnson. Mr. Johnson was a study in the exercise of power and sheer audacity. He both took Dr. King's message to the airways and the American public, and fought in the halls of Congress as hard as any President in American history.
LBJ seized upon the inertia Dr. King had inspired and lead the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Voting Rights Act of 1965, ushering in a day 45 years later when a black man could occupy the Oval Office.
Backroom secret deals with big pharma is not my idea of getting it done the right way. Capitulation to every unseemly, manipulative demand of members of Congress (e.g., Ben Nelson, Bart Stupak, Joe Lieberman etc.) is not my idea of getting it done the right way.
Obama totally botched his opportunity to go big and go bold with the people fully behind him by opting for the politics as usual approach he took upon taking office.
Get ready for 2 more years of the Obama pinata.
What is the layman's definition of insanity?
It's time to man up Mr. President and grow some cojones. We voted on "Yes We Can!" not "Well Maybe we might!".
Your political stances are either right or they're not. Stand and fight for them. If a Republican truly loves his country he'll vote yes. Otherwise, nothing you say or do will sway him. Deal with that fact.
Realize, Mr. President, that if you don't start fighting for your positions you will not have an army of supporters behind you, watching your back.
Putting people back to work and maintaining them until that can happen needs to be Priority 1.
It's a multiple part solution tariffs, tax code modifications, targeted stimulus of growth industries, breaking up companies who are too big to employ, internet collection of sales taxes, unemployment extensions, and ending the Wars that drain the necessary funds to rebuild America in order to destroy poor people abroad.
That says it all right there. If Obama does not come out swinging, and do so very quickly then he is doomed in 2012. What happened to Yes we can? Instead it is more like, well I don't know, let's wait and see, be patient and it might happen. We did not vote for that, we want and need a fighter right now!!!
You heard it here first, folks!
THANK YOU.
The ship of state is more unwieldy than that.
I'm not pleased by the progress made in so many fronts and I'm afraid we have lost momentum when I read comments of intelligent progressives to a post like this.
However, being realistic, where else can we go?
The impatience shown our president by his liberal supporters is like the impatience I feel at the grocery store when I switch lanes for a faster check-out. I almost take more time than I would have in the line that I left. Grass is greener and all that...
Soooo, if we start from scratch, we'll be at the mercy of baggers for the next 20 years.
How'd you like them apples?
You know it'd be worse, so let's continue to carp and petition and prod and poke...
We're closer than we could be in another lane.
It's those who stay home that should be of most concern. It's myopic of me to suggest that civil equality is just a "gay" issue. It's not. The country has moved beyond that. Case in point. I spoke before a crowd of about 50 teens in a rural community in NC. Asked for just simple answer: most impt. issue before America? Overwhelming response was civil equality for LGBT people, followed by the economy (20% of their parents unemployed), followed by combination of environment and "how am I going to afford college." I'd say about 5 of those kids were gay.
As a 15 y.o. put it, "we just don't get it."
I may be voting green in '12, but I'm not sure. If huckabee or palin win the nom, I will sure as hell vote for obama, but if romney wins the nomination, maybe I will vote for him.
With no victories, and by not standing up to the bigots, he's impressing NO ONE, and they're surprised obama enthusiasm has waned.
Since our founding, we have had a Constitutional separation of the religious extremists and full government control. Granted, sitting out elections and allowing the implosion to happen will be painful but how is limping along in perpetual debt and a zombie status any better? A revolution now and again is a good thing.
I am beyond angry with this crap. Nobody in this country deserves this. I hope you read the report cited from the Southern Law Poverty Center. I'll excerpt:
"The SPLC’s analysis of 14 years of hate crime data found that homosexuals, or those perceived to be gay, are more than twice as likely to be attacked in a violent hate crime as Jews or blacks; more than four times as likely as Muslims; and 14 times as likely as Latinos. The findings are based on FBI hate crime statistics from 1995 to 2008, the period for which there is complete data. The basic pattern also holds true in individual years."
The President was born at a time in America's history when his black father and white mother- a traditional marriage of man and woman mind you- could not be married in 2/3 of the states in the United States. His lack of empathy, sense of urgency for championing civil equality for gay people is outright contemptible.
I do not agree that Mr. Obama is a strict Constitutionalist. If so he would never make irrelevant statements like "I believe marriage is between a man and a woman" as a basis for framing his perspective on the law.