I have to admit, Mr. President, you’ve got me really confused.
You’ve taken office with huge partisan majorities in Congress, and an approval rating that makes Jesus gnash his teeth with envy. Hell, you’ve even got adorable daughters to keep us all captivated. This is the sort of political momentum that gave most of your predecessors (especially the last one) the green light for a slash-and-burn, salt-the-earth crusade for his legislative agenda.
Remember “I’ve got political capital, and I intend to spend it”? That came of a few thousand votes in Ohio. If he had political capital, you’re King Midas.
And what have you done with this? Let’s see: you’ve got a Republican heading your military. Another one heading Transportation, which last time I checked was a pretty major item on the infrastructure agenda. And word is that you want another one to take over at Commerce.
Military, infrastructure, and commerce. Um. Pardon me, but aren’t those three issues on which you pretty much whomped the Republican party? If George Mitchell had negotiated those appointments as part of a cease-fire agreement after the war you won in November, he’d be a shoo-in for the Nobel Peace Prize.
And yet, each day of the news cycle is filling us up with the constant complaints of John Boehner and Mitch McConnell, who are still getting a 2 to 1 advantage getting their message across. What am I missing here? The Republican strategy is obvious: weaken your proposals as much as possible, and blame you when they fail. Or, if you succeed, claim that Republican policies would have been oh so much better. Either way they try to take a chunk out of your majorities in 2010 and lessen your political advantage.
I repeat, your political advantage. I.e., the power you have now which you are currently not using.
Mr. President, I think you’re actually pretty damn savvy, and you have some kind of long game you’re playing with these initial attempts at bipartisan outreach. I think that there’s a flinty Chicago plan for how you’re going to turn that goose egg House vote to your political favor. And I think you’re genuine when you say you want to change the way the game in Washington is played; the problem is that this bipartisan thing so far is making you look as naive as Jefferson Smith.
I don’t buy that for a second. But at the same time, I sure as hell can’t explain to myself why you’re governing as if the election was a tie. You don’t inspire by finding the center. You inspire by picking a direction, grabbing a multicolored banner, and leading the parade with the audacity of Harold fucking Hill.
But you know that, and you’re still looking for centrism. It makes me wonder about your game plan. It’s certainly not what I expected, and it reminds me of past disappointment. I hope you’re better than that, Mr. Obama, so please, prove me wrong.
It’s almost as if he’s considering individual Republicans for prominent leadership positions, rathre than tarring the entire party with the “evil” brush. Strange, huh?
As for the stimulus package, I think Republicans are on the airwaves more because it’s much easier to point out the weaknesses in the bill than the strengths. That’s always true about complicated problems, especially when you’ve got Congress harping on irrelevant distractions…
What’s strange is that there’s a huge difference between considering Republican positions, and hiring Republican people. The first is bipartisanship by saying “we’re taking all good ideas on their merit”. The second puts people in charge of important swaths of government which presumably were included in the executive branch that America voted to change.
Specifically, I’m stunned by keeping Gates, but I can understand the military stability argument even if I disagree with it. I’m more-or-less neutral on LaHood, but I’d greatly prefer a Democrat with strong national public transit opinions. Gregg just confuses the hell out of me: a conservative in charge at Commerce when we’re spending $800 billion? As a replacement for Bill Richardson? That doesn’t add up at all.
I think Republicans are on the airwaves more because it’s much easier to point out the weaknesses in the bill than the strengths.
Nah, a good political offensive can easily find the strengths here, and trust me that when the tables were turned, Republicans had the dominant hand on the airwaves then too. Personally, I think the networks just haven’t updated their Rolodexes yet and are being intellectually lazy; meanwhile, the Obama White House is still learning the ropes, and Congressional Democrats are still ineffectual buffoons — with the sole exceptions of Barney Frank and Bernie Sanders, who have been out raising hell.