Obama Morphs into Bush

It is curious to watch President morph into President Bush, and without the benefit of a YouTube video. In the last week the Obama Administration has managed to engineer its own Katrina. When the BP oil rig exploded in the Gulf, the Administration waited precious days to get into gear.

If you don't believe me, ask the New York flippin' Times.

The company, BP, seems to have been slow to ask for help, and, on Friday, both federal and state officials accused it of not moving aggressively or swiftly enough. Yet the administration should not have waited, and should have intervened much more quickly on its own initiative.

A White House as politically attuned as this one should have been conscious of two obvious historical lessons. One was the Exxon Valdez, where a late and lame response by both industry and the federal government all but destroyed one of the country's richest fishing grounds and ended up costing billions of dollars. The other was President George W. Bush's hapless response to Hurricane Katrina.

Now this is a bit unfair on both sides. Bush committed a number of unforced political errors during the Katrina disaster (like going on vacation!). But he also a coast guard ship to begin relief efforts when the storm was just off the water. That might be the quickest federal relief ever delivered in a hurricane.

Likewise it isn't easy for the President to respond within hours to this kind of event. It was days before anyone knew how bad it was. In politics, however, impressions count for more than reasonable assessments. Obama now has his Katrina.

Perhaps afraid that he was falling behind in his race to become Bush, on Saturday the President once again went out of his way to discredit dissent. From the AP:

In Obama's 31-minute address to what the White House said was his biggest audience since the inauguration, the president made no mention of Palin or the tea party movement. He did say that debates about the size and role of government are as old as the republic itself.

"But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad," said Obama, who received an honorary doctor of laws degree. "When our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it ignores the fact that in our democracy, government is us."

When and where did the President hear anyone say that "all of government is inherently bad"? This is a straw man. The President's critics aren't anarchists. They aren't opposed to the existence of government, or speed limits. They are opposed to the radical expansion of government powers, spending, and deficits. That is a minor sophism. Here is a major one:

Obama urged both sides in the political debate to tone it down. "Throwing around phrases like 'socialists' and 'Soviet-style takeover,"fascists' and 'right-wing nut' - that may grab headlines," he said. But it also "closes the door to the possibility of compromise...

"At its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response."

It's nice that he is being even handed, but surely his Administration has relentlessly argued that its critics are extremists. That doesn't exactly open the door to compromise.

The message here is that those who vigorously dissent to his policies are in effect encouraging domestic terrorism. That is exactly the kind of thing that drove the American Left into a frenzy when someone in the Bush Administration said it. But the Bushies said such things very rarely. This is apparently Obama's official stance.

Passionate rhetoric isn't new, [the President] acknowledged. Politics in America, he said, "has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint of heart. ... If you enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up."

Well, then, buck up. You are going to get roughed up, so why complain about it and accuse the other side of encouraging sedition? The President can't really bring himself to acknowledge the legitimacy of his critics. He is morphing into what Bush's critics thought Bush was. Or maybe that is unfair. Maybe this is what Obama was from the beginning.

Comments

[Bob]

A new book released today uncovers for the first time where and how President Obama first met Weather Underground terrorist-group founder William Ayers,and it is much earlier than previously believed.

[A.I.]

Being one who scans such things from left to right, it seems to me you morphed Bush into Obama--a great improvement I must say!

[KB]

Bob: interesting. What does that mean?

A.I.: it warms my heart to know you still are reading. I'd love to hear more from you. You are right, of course. The image shows Bush morphing into Obama. Is that really what you were hoping for when the Great Hope took office?

I can't help noticing that in one respect Obama has indeed improved upon Bush. Bush, it was incessantly said, alienated world opinion. Obama managed to alienate just those countries that are most friendly to the United States, like Israel and Great Britain. He has bent over backwards to be nice to countries that don't much care for us, like Iran. They don't seem to be warming to the touch. Is there any nation, even one, with which we have better relations under Obama than we had under Bush?

[A.I.]

While Obama has had some differences with Netanyahu and Brown, that does not necessarily mean they or the populations of their countries are alienated. U.S. favorability remained high in Israel and had improved markedly in England by last spring according to Pew Research whose polling is included here: http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_04/023402.php

Overall, the U.S. seems to be fairing quite well internationally. And, my bet is Germany and France both have better relations with the U.S. now than under Bush--unless I'm mistaken and Angela Merkel actually wants surprise shoulder rubs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dfrHT8o-0A and both counties secretly wanted to be drug into the Iraq war.

[KB]

A.I.: Obama has consistently insulted the British government. Sarkozy in France has spoken scathingly of Obama. Since countries meet at the top, relations between governments matter more than popular opinion in each country. I don't know of any nation that we have better relations with under Obama than under Bush. Certainly none of the nations mentioned above. As for Germany, Bush and Merkel had a very strong relationship.

[Scott]

that when ever all other possibilities have been eamniilted that what ever remains no matter how unlikely it is must be true. There seem to be three possibilities here. Bush is either secretly a Democrat and, as such, seeks to undermine all things Republican, he really is not the brightest light in the harbor, or he knows that supposedly private conversations can and will be leaked to the media but he has these conversations any way because he wants to do his best to help the incoming Administration succeed. If the Obama administation fails, America fails. Its that simple. I think the thinking of the Bush Administration comes down to wanting the incoming Administration to succeed. I think as flawed as Bush's character is and it is VERY flawed he deeply cares about the country. As such, he has two options here. He can seek to withhold vital information from the incoming President and his staff or he can hold frank discussions with them about the issues even though it will be leaked to the press. By having candid discussions with the incoming President and his staff he gives them a greater chance of succeeding. What the President might try to do is to explain to the American people why a free trade agreement with Columbia is important. In other words, take on the news media head on. As it is right now, the media has defined the story as though Obama and his staff are heroic and Bush is being petty by wanting a free trade agreement with Columbia. As it is right now, Columbia is a beleagured ally that is surrounded by hostile powers. If we don't try to help them, they will be forced into the embrace of the new up coming power of Venezuela. Is this how to treat an ally or someone who is thinking about being an ally? Their reward for being friendly with the United States is for the Democrats to use them as a political football in their war on the Bush Administration and Republicans. Truly disgraceful. Bush and his team should at least make an effort to point this out to the American public.