Republican Recovery? Democratic Disarray.

It’s a bit early for the GOP to begin uncorking the bubbly and announcing mission accomplished, but they are getting the first good news since, well, I can’t remember the last time.  From Charlie Cook: 

In the new National Public Radio poll conducted by the Democratic polling company Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and its Republican counterpart, Public Opinion Strategies, 42 percent of the 800 likely voters surveyed March 10 to 14 said that if the next congressional election were held today they would vote for the Republican candidate; an identical percentage of respondents said they would vote for the Democratic one. For several years, Democrats held a substantial lead on this question.

Democrats still outnumbered Republicans in terms of party identification in this poll by 6 points, 45 percent to 39 percent. Democrats also favored their own party's congressional candidates 83 percent to 7 percent. But voters who call themselves independents gave GOP candidates the edge by 14 points, 38 percent to 24 percent. And self-identified Republicans supported their own party's candidates 85 percent to 3 percent.

This is the first time Republicans have led among independents since 2004, and that 14 point lead is whopping.  What gives?

Not, I think, anything the Republicans have been doing.  Their minority party responses have been anemic, at best, and the Party is pretty disorganized. 

It’s the Democrats who are in charge, and being in charge is itself a liability when things are going poorly, or when a lot of Americans are going poor.  My honorable interlocutors on these blogs are wont to play out the “He just became President!” angle as long as possible, but that stops working mighty fast.  The economy now belongs to Barack, and as long as it’s coming a cropper, he’s got a lot of weight on his shoulders.  Of course that will swing back to their favor when we get a recovery, and I am guessing that we will get one well before 2012. 

But it’s not just the economy; it is also the disarray of the White House.  Obama’s spending plans are big and scary, and that might be the road to greatness and perhaps national salvation.  But if you are going to do that sort of thing, you need to keep a firm grasp on the little stuff.  People are a lot less likely to believe in your plan to keep the levy from breaking if they can see that the toilets in your house are all backed up. 

That’s the meaning of the AIG Bonus scandal, which in substance, I think, is a non-story.  From the non-hostile Eleanor Clift:

Who would have thought 55 days into this administration we would be asking the question, what did he know and when did he know it? Word that a provision in the stimulus bill gave the green light for AIG to hand out bonuses using taxpayer money sent the media bloodhounds hot on the trail of whoever is the culprit…

Obama hates what he calls "process stories," but they are a staple of Washington reporting, and the backstory of this first major Obama blunder has consequences. First, it undermines the president's credibility with his own party on Capitol Hill. Democrats voted almost unanimously for the stimulus package and now Republicans have a weapon to use against them with this Treasury-inspired provision that benefits AIG. Second, the controversy undermines the trust that the American people have in government at a time when it is spending billions upon billions.

That’s what a backed-up beltway toilet looks and smells like. 

And it doesn’t help that Obama’s storied eloquence seems to evaporate whenever he isn’t in front of a teleprompter.  On the Jay Leno show (a venue for refining and enlarging the public view that Madison forgot to mention), the President managed to compare American bankers with suicide bombers.  Does this mean that Al Qaeda’s senior leadership can go to Chris Dodd for generous bonuses?  Better still, he made what amounted to a retard joke (see Special Olympics).  Can you imagine what the left wing blogosphere would be doing with that one if it had been Dubya? 

To be sure, it’s easy to go off the rails when there aren’t any rails, but these sorts of things are very dangerous for Presidents.  From Tobin Harshaw at the New York Times:

Gerald Ford, the finest athlete in Oval Office history, stumbles getting off a plane and America gets stuck with Chevy Chase’s career for the next three decades; Ronald Reagan, who brought about the perhaps the most significant reduction of nuclear weapons of the cold war, makes a bad joke about bombing Russia during a microphone sound check and is forever painted as a paranoid warmonger…

Of course the Press won’t repeat Obama’s gaffs the way they do Republican ones, and that will make a difference.  But they are arrows in the quiver of every right of center pundit, not to mention future campaigns. 

I expect that the Administration will firm up some time soon.  The Treasury Department, if we ever get one, will get its act together.  The President will learn to speak in polite company, and the economy will do what economies do.  But Obama’s grand ambitions and the looming astronomical deficits mean he had better get in gear fast and stay in gear. 

Right now the White House is a mess.  Half the Democratic Party fell in love with the idea of Barack Obama before they knew anything about him.  Let’s hope that this is just a rocky start, and not the moment when we really began to find out what sort of fellow we put in charge. 

Comments

[A.I.]

A few thoughts:

The stimulus bill did not so much "green light" the AIG bonuses as it failed to red light them. The green light was on from the day AIG signed contracts with the bonus recipients and stayed on right through the TARP negotiations and passage last year. And I would be remiss in my "interlocutoring" duties if a did not point out a seeming contradiction in your post: How then is the White House in "disarray" and "a mess" because of a substantive "non-story"?

While less eloquent sans teleprompter, Obama's spontaneous responses generally are nuanced and project an intelligence that inspires confidence. My only criticism of his unprecedented appearance on late night television is choosing Leno rather than better alternatives--although Letterman wasn't on last week and I suppose Stewart's guests were already booked.

Reagans nuke-em gaff perhaps hurt him a bit, but he left office with a 63% approval rating--second only to Clinton among modern Presidents. He truly was a "Teflon" President and Obama seems to have that quality as well. So while you may believe the media is harder on Republican gaffs than Democratic, I think what sticks is what plays, or vice versa. Which is to say the success of media's often pathetic and juvenile(Letterman and Stewart being obvious exceptions)efforts to capture audience at the expense of those covered has more to do with the personality of the gaffer than the tenacity of his or her detractors. In essence, no one gets a fair shake.

One final thought: Contrary to how you sometimes seem to portray myself and other Obama supporters, I do not believe he could walk a straight line from the Lincoln to the Jefferson Memorial without (a) causing a slight rise in the Tidal Basin and (b) getting very wet. He is a politician and mortal and thus, imperfect. I do, however, think he is incredibly bright and energetic, has the best interests the country at heart and has the potential to be a truly great President.

[KB]

Thanks, A.I., that was a great post. No contradiction: Ford's stumble and Reagan's gaffe were non-stories, like Carter's Rabbit; such stories can hurt if they stick. I am less impressed with Obama's nuance than you are, for reasons mentioned in the post. As for greatness, there is no possible way to know anything about that now. As I said, you are very attracted by the idea of Barack Obama. Maybe the reality will be as good or better. Moreover, we may need a great President on occasion, but we shouldn't want one, for the same reason that one should not want to live in interesting times.

[A.I.]

Or maybe we should want President's with the potential for greatness just in case times do get interesting. Reserves can't hurt.

As for contradiction, perhaps I explained poorly. I was referring to "bonus non-story" not being a very solid basis to claim the White House is in disarray in this post or, for that matter, that the Obama administration is economically incompetent as claimed in a previous post. Either the bonuses are a non-story that matters little, or they are important in grading the administration's economic policies. My take is they are the former.

I am not so much "attracted to the idea" of Obama (I'm not an enamored groupie) as I respect his qualities of intelligence coupled with good intentions and ambition. I also appreciated William F. Buckley, Jr. for the same reasons--although I was obviously less in step with him politically. And now that I mention it, I also disagree with Obama on some issues--merit pay for teachers, for example.

[Mac]

The President is doing a great job and I see him being reelected in 2012. He has nothing to worry about. We have never been in better hands.

[Mac]

I think despite the alarmist retoric from Mr. Blanchard, President Obama has weathered more storms than our past President did during his entire term and it shows he can do this. I think Ken needs to stop watching "Network" so many times...LOL

[connie conservative]

Your man crush is showing, Mac!