The same pundits who, just a year ago, were propagating the notion Obama’s historic election signaled the end of the Republican Party as a viable force in American politics. Now they would have you believe that the Brown’s upset election signals the end of the Democratic Party….
[Election of Scott Brown: sound and fury signifying nothing, TIJ, January 20, 2010]
This quote sums up my take on the handwringing and finger-pointing among Democrats on the one hand, and the gloating and chest thumping among Republicans on the other in the wake of last week’s stunning upset victory of Republican Scott Brown to fill the “Democratic Senate seat” vacated by the late Sen Edward Kennedy.
Of course, I expected no more from the partisan hacks who masquerade on Capitol Hill in Washington as this nation’s political leaders.
But I was profoundly disappointed when even President Obama reacted as if Brown’s election to the Senate signaled every bit as great a transformation in American politics as his election to the White House.
For nothing made him seem just like the rest of them quite like the way he tried to rationalize the failure of his presidential coattails to take Democratic candidates to victory in gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, as well as in this Senate race in Massachusetts:
If there’s one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values.
(Obama in an interview last week with George Stephanopoulos of ABC)
A failure to communicate?!
The only problem with this of course is that the very articulate Obama has spent more time speaking directly to the American people than any other president in the first year of his presidency. In fact, in “Obama’s First Year: By the Numbers,” CBS news documents that he gave 411 speeches, comments and remarks; 158 interviews; 42 news conferences; and 23 Town Hall meetings.
This begs the question: What the hell does Obama think he was talking about all year – if not about core values like good jobs and healthcare, and about fixing the economy and reforming health insurance coverage to match up with those values?
In fact, only two months into his presidency, he was spending so much time talking to the American people and not enough time getting stuff done that I felt constrained to offer the following cautionary observation:
Researchers have determined that President Obama has made more media appearances at this point in his presidency than any of his predecessors… Critics can be forgiven the impression that he’s doing more to compete with the likes of the “Octomom” and Lindsay Lohan for media coverage than to fix the ailing US economy.
[Is Obama’s familiarity breeding contempt…? TIJ, March 25, 2009]
But God help him if he thinks all the American people need is more of his mug on TV talking … at them. Because the one criticism that has really resonated this year is that he’s turning out to be all talk and no action. And the fact that most Americans would be hard-pressed to cite any of the stuff he was so busy getting done only reinforces this perception.
Therefore, after he delivers yet another scheduled speech tomorrow night (his State of the Union Address), I urge him to spend less time talking and more time creating jobs, combating terrorism and reforming healthcare.
And, who knows, maybe that absence from TV will allow the American people to rekindle the fondness they had for him a year ago.
I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.
(Obama in an interview yesterday with Diane Sawyer of ABC News)
In the meantime, though, when he does speak it would help if he is a little more straightforward with the American people instead of saying things that sound good but mean absolutely nothing. For example, he knows full well that any president who has a good (never mind a really good) first term automatically gets a second term; which makes his attempt to seem principled and courageous by declaring no interest in being a mediocre two-term president patently specious.
That said, what is certain is that, if employment is still languishing over 8.5 percent in September 2012 (or God forbid, if there’s another 9/11 attack), Obama will be a failed one-term president – fated to be rated even worse than Jimmy Carter. This, no matter what or how many changes he makes in political strategy and White House personnel (with all due respect to David Plouffe).
Related commentaries:
Election of Scott Brown…
Is Obama’s familiarity breeding contempt
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.