The President’s No Good Very Bad Fortnight

When Nancy Pelosi announced that she was running for minority leader in the House, Charles Krauthammer asked, with a sly smile, "How good a week can one have?" Members of the White House staff who are capable of self reflection must be asking how bad a fortnight can get.

A jaunt abroad usually provides a president some relief from distress at home. You quietly work all the details out in advance and then shake hands and announce the agreements when you get there. Lots of cameras flash, and you look like you can do something right.

President Obama apparently didn't understand the necessity for the first part. From the New York Daily News:

Obama's inauspicious 10-day, four-nation trip included a failure to land an anticipated slam dunk free trade agreement with South Korea.

It also included a botched effort to rally Western allies to press China to budge on a monetary policy that threatens to keep the U.S. economy in the tank.

China's economic policy is not something over which the President has much leverage. He might have had some influence over our allies, but no, apparently not. The U.S. can act as world leader when it brings power to the table. When we come to the table looking for other nations to bail us out, well, the Germans have their own ideas about what to do. Again, the trick for a President is to figure this out in advance and set expectations accordingly. The President went and begged and was humiliated in public.

The South Korean thing was the result of a previous self-inflicted wound compounded by incompetence. A free trade agreement with Seoul was all worked out when Obama took office. He only needed to sign it. Instead he shelved it and went back to the drawing board. That was back in the stardust and Nobel Prize days. Obama was sure he could do anything.

Now he really needed a treaty. You figure something could have been worked out over the last six months or so. Apparently not. President Obama met with South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and, well, we're not quite there yet. The assumption is that a treaty is coming. Both sides want and need an agreement. The trade representatives of both countries just need to iron out the details. What have they been doing up to now? The answer, it seems, is that the Koreans have been waiting for the Administration to present its case. Gale Collins has this in her New York Times column.

This week he went to South Korea to negotiate a trade agreement, and the agreement fell through. The administration says this is because he was being a tough bargainer, but you don't send the president overseas to fail to get an agreement. Wasn't anybody taking notes when he went to Denmark to fail to get the Olympics for Chicago?

So the President limps home from his no good very bad foreign junket to face a Congress that is decidedly less friendly than the one he has previously enjoyed. "Shellacked at home and shellacked abroad," reads the first line of the San Francisco Chronicle editorial.

One wonders what is left of that great faith that the President inspired only a score of months ago. Gale Collins gives us a hint:

I have faith in Barack Obama. Of course, I also have faith in the New York Mets.

I am putting my money on the Mets. The President seems to have no idea what he is doing.

Comments

[Donald Pay]

And the reason he has no idea what he is doing is because he's pushing tired, failed Republican ideas about the economy. nfrair trade agreements are not going to jump-start our economy. All we'll get out of South Korea trade agreement is more unemployment. Only a Republican would think not signing away our sovereignty to international and bilateral trade agreements is failure. I think it's a success. I'll give Obama some credit here, even though he's still pushing these deals. He pushed harder on the details than the Republicans would even do, and tried to protect American jobs. That is probably why the Republicans are pushing the "failed" meme. Anything that doesn't outsource jobs so that corporate fat cats can stick it to the American worker is considered failure.

[William]

Donald, are you attempting to change the point, or do you simply fail to grasp it? Your post is simply gibberish: (Obama) has no idea" because he's "pushing Republican ideas"; South Korean trade agreement (bad, attack Republicans); Obama's trip a "success" (because he tries "harder" than Republicans); Republicans are trying to make Obama look bad... Donald, the President's failure on the world stage goes far beyond partisan sniping.

An American President makes an international trip to represent American interests and influence. It's a major event that should translate into an increase American prestige and the President's personal political capital. As the San Fransisco Chronicle points out, "U.S. leadership, once taken for granted, has all but vanished, and no one's in charge." (Obama = "No one")

Donald, you apparently still suffer from the delusion that President Obama has more ability than he's been able to muster so far; falsely believing that Obama is merely unwilling to reveal his infinite wisdom in all things. Listen to Obama speak and, while he at first sounds articulate, you'll see he constantly speaks in platitudes. If you honestly evaluate his statements, you'll realize there's little or no substance to what he says. The world is coming to inevitable realization that inexperience combined with ineptitude and a grand delusional self-vision is quickly turning President Obama into an international laughing- stock!

[Donald Pay]

No, I think Obama is a corporatist and is following Republican economic policy. That's the problem. When he deviates from the corporatist Republican line, I give him credit. Republican policy, by the way, is to have no one in government in charge to act as a counterweight to the multinational corporations. You should be happy.

[William]

Donald,

I'm decidedly NOT happy when America is viewed as weak, which is the primary result of the President's international trip. Republican (bad) vs Democrat (good) isn't much of an argument here.

[George Mason]

Obama failed because he is not trusted. He had opportunities to sign free trade agreements with Colombia and South Korea when he came into office. He came into office as a union style protectionist telling our trading partners they were not important to the U.S. (read that union campaign contributors). Now suddenly he is Mr. Free Trade. Both friends and adversaries are wondering what he will be next year when he commences his re-election campaign. Combine this with the incompetent and ham fisted style of Obama and his minions in even minor dealings in both foreign and domestic affairs and this last week may only be a preview.

[Miranda]

Donald: If the President had had more success in pushing Democratic ideas, you might have a valid point. But he does not seem to be having much luck with that either. Consider the public's reception of the health care act.

[Donald Pay]

Sorry, George, wrong again. Obama has always supported free trade. He pivoted briefly during the primary campaign, when it appeared he might actually have a Democratic economic program, but that last as long as it took to beat Hillary.

I hope you aren't serious about signing an agreement with Columbia. Columbia's government murders trade unionists, and organizes slave labor "cooperatives" that are really just fronts for big business. The US would have to compete against Columbian slave labor. Even with his Republican free trade policy Obama has had the morals to hold off.

[larry kurtz]

Doc, are you falling victim to the half-empty cant heralding the Boehner Ascention? What's in it for you?

[larry kurtz]

Ascension. This story seemed to tell the Left's reconciliation with President Obama so well: http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2010/11/12/06

[George Mason]

Donald as usual you are off in your on little world (and it's Colombia, no "u").
It is your friends in FARC who have been holding the Colombians hostage. The Colombian government has been making a great effort against FARC and their allies in the drug trade. They have been making progress against them. FARC of course is now receiving considerable support from your pal Chavez as he attempts to destabilize the region. The Colombians are facing this with great courage and are deserving of our support. The Mexicans should take lessons.

[Donald Pay]

Sorry to burst your ideological bubble, but FARC is being propped up by the international corporations to harass and kill union leaders.

[KB]

George: everyone around here is a corporatist shill except for me and Donald. And sometimes I have my doubts about Donald.