Obama's Good Start

So far, so good.

The first week of Barack Obama's transition to the presidency has gone about as well as anyone could imagine. His few public appearances have been gaffe-free, and his initial decisions in setting up his administration have been strongly reassuring.

The new president's first decision -- to name Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff -- was a positive step on two levels.

It is significant that Obama began structuring his White House staff before he turned to the construction of a Cabinet. Bill Clinton did the reverse and paid a high price for it. Clinton dawdled in filling the Cabinet jobs, preoccupied with achieving racial, ethnic and gender diversity. It was almost Inauguration Day before he told his campaign aides what jobs they were getting in the White House.

Many of the early decisions were mishandled, and Clinton created the impression that individual department chiefs would do more to set policy than the president. Cabinet government is a familiar concept, but it is not practical when so many issues require coordination across bureaucratic lines.

Clinton's second mistake was giving the chief-of-staff job to Thomas F. "Mack" McLarty, his boyhood friend from Arkansas. McLarty was a novice in Washington and -- by his own declaration -- ill-suited to the job. It took Clinton months to correct the error.

By contrast, Emanuel is a Washington veteran, having served first as a senior legislative-political-press aide to Clinton and, more recently, as a Chicago congressman, a key member of the party's House leadership.

Emanuel is a volatile personality. When he was in the White House the first time, he was a shouter. When angry about something that I'd written about Clinton, which he often was, his protest calls were so high-decibel that I often found myself holding the phone at arm's length, just to spare my eardrums.

But Emanuel has calmed down a lot -- at least in my experience. In the past four years, I have found him responsive and remarkably smart in his assessments of national and congressional politics. He is as serious about policy as he is about politics, and while he waited a long time before endorsing Obama out of loyalty to Bill and Hillary Clinton, he clearly has earned the trust of the new president.

Some Republicans have complained publicly that Emanuel is too partisan to reflect Obama's professed desire to enlist the talents and help of both Republicans and Democrats. But I think that they are misreading his personality and that this view disregards the friendships he has built with GOP colleagues such as Rep. Ray LaHood of Peoria, Ill.

Thursday, November 13, 2008; Page A23

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/12/AR2008111202532.html

Obama’s Very Bad Start

How a promising leader turned into the playground bully — overnight!

November 14, 2008 - by Stephen Green

Monday, our own Jennifer Rubin wrote a column called “The GOP Gets Off to a Bad Start.” Let’s take a look at the other side of the issue. It seems like our president-elect is keeping himself busy picking unnecessary fights. Is this the way Obama will conduct business with Rahm Emanuel as his chief of staff, or is it just a case of a new president finding his footing?

Obama vs. Pelosi/Green Machine vs. Jobs

On the Detroit bailout, Obama has hinted that he wants to make sure the money goes to retooling for clean, fuel efficient cars. Just like the original $25 billion Department of Energy bill was supposed to do. Nancy Pelosi is most worried about the UAW and jobs and would probably pump fresh blood into an entire city of the dead to save a single union job. So it looks like Obama and Pelosi are going to clash — and soon. Some reports indicate that GM will be down to its minimum operating cash before the end of the year — and that would make Chapter 11 all but a foregone conclusion. Detroit needs cash, but for what? The Obama Plan or the Pelosi Plan?

Obama vs. Southern Democrats on Guns

Obama is also gearing up for a fight with southern Democrats. After being mostly silent on guns during the campaign, Obama’s Web site has recently added or restored language indicating the return of the “assault weapons ban” on scary-looking rifles. Southern Democrats paid with their jobs for Clinton’s ban back in 1994. You might expect the new Blue Dog Dems to join hands and sing Kumbaya with House and Senate Republicans to block a new Scary Looking Rifles Law.

Obama vs. Republicans

OK, so maybe this item is no real shocker, but it still seems a little early in the game for Mr. Post Partisan to be dissing Republicans. And yet, Obama has already soiled relations with the GOP, thanks to leaks from his meeting with President Bush on Monday. Obama might just give us the most ethical administration ever — I mean, anything can happen. But it’s already shaping up to be the most indiscrete. If Obama wants to reach across the aisle, that’s great. He just shouldn’t do so with a joy buzzer in his hand.

Obama vs. Europe

Speaking of indiscretion, Obama doesn’t seem to have a clue on how to treat American allies. During the primary race, he threatened to crack down on major threats like Canada — a position he probably/maybe/sort of backed off from in backdoor talks with the Canadian government. In Europe, Obama is already to the left of most every major EU leader. Then last week, Obama told Poland one thing about missile defense in private and told Russia quite another thing in public. In other words, he’s doing his best to spoil relations with Poland, which will have repercussions throughout Eastern Europe, too. Our allies have got to wonder where Obama stands. I think we all do.

Obama vs. Everybody (Eventually) on Taxes

Obama promised to raise taxes only on the lower-upper class on up. Then we got hints that taxes would go up for the upper middle class, too. And now we’re learning that Team Obama has plans to raise taxes on people who do evil things like own cars. Or just drive them. Which by my count is … pretty much everybody.

More ominously, unless we get middle class entitlement reform out of the Democrats, then eventually everybody’s taxes are going up. Way up. And “eventually” comes closer every year, as the Baby Boomers have begun to retire and place new financial strains on our retirement and health care transfer-payment systems. Alternately, Washington can give us a big round of inflation — a hidden tax which will do for your 401(k)… what Washington has already done to your 401(k).

So it’s true — Obama really is bringing people together. He’s bringing them together … against Barack Obama. While it’s true that Republicans got off on the wrong foot this week and last, so did Obama. And if he keeps it up, then the Republicans might not be the minority party for too very much longer.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-very-bad-start/

129 Comments

19. Ms. Attitude:

16. G-Ma:

Here’s the article:

Obama Transition Team Examines Congestion Tax
UK congestion charge consultants report Obama transition team interested in tolling.

British newspapers report that President-elect Barack Obama (D) may import congestion charging programs from the UK. Jack Opiola, a transportation principal for the firm Booz, Allen and Hamilton, was hired to design a program to tax drivers at least £5 (US $8) when entering the city of Manchester during peak hours. Opiola told the Manchester Evening News yesterday that the president-elect’s transition team approached him for additional details on the plan.

“I was ‘noticed’ by key people in the Obama campaign and I have been providing input to his strategy team in Chicago, including information about Greater Manchester’s bid,” Opiola said.

If approved in a referendum later this month, drivers entering an 80 square mile section of Manchester would be subject to the charge. The program would generate £120 million (US $180 million) in annual profit. A similar program in London cost drivers £268 million (US $408 million) and failed to provide promised reductions in congestion, according to Transport for London data (view report).

Until now, Senator Obama has been circumspect when discussing his administration’s transportation plans. Previously, his most specific proposal was the creation of a $60 billion toll road bank (view details). In March, Obama endorsed New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s idea to charge a $9 toll on cars and a $22 toll for trucks that enter downtown Manhattan during working hours.

Hoping to fill the gap with specifics, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) last month submitted a detailed $544 billion transportation reauthorization proposal designed to encourage the new administration to shore up the domestic economy with heavy spending on infrastructure projects. The new programs would be paid for with massive new tax hikes, including a per-mile driving tax that would begin with “proof of concept” trials as early as 2010. The tax would initially be one cent per mile and generate $32.4 billion a year. An extra one cent per gallon in the federal gasoline tax would generate another $1.8 billion, and a national sales tax on cars of one percent would generate $7.6 billion.

“With this historic election, AASHTO is optimistic that the new administration can help to foster the political will necessary to bridge the gap between today’s transportation needs and the transportation system we must build for tomorrow,” the group said in a statement.

Source: Obama team study c-charge (Manchester Evening News (UK), 11/12/2008)

45. Brightfame:

Sen. Obama is not, as one commenter noted, confirmed as the winner of the Presidential election until the Electoral College meets in December. One concern (ignored by the major media outlets, of course) that has been raised by attorney Philip Berg of Pennsylvania is that Sen. Obama may not be a “natural born citizen,”
and therefore ineligible to serve as President. The link below leads to a YouTube video that gives an excellent presentation (by Mr. Berg himself) of his concerns about Sen. Obama’s birth records. It’s well worth the eleven minutes it takes to watch it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gA6_k3NtXZs

WorldNetDaily is doing an excellent job of following up on Mr. Berg’s lawsuit, which is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court and awaiting a response from Sen. Obama’s campaign.
Stay tuned…this election isn’t over yet!

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/obamas-very-bad-start/

November 7th, 2008 3:41 pm

Again:How Will Obama Govern?

      The appointment of Rahm Emanuel is more evidence for what I suggested the other day, that Barack Obama will seek to govern from the political center. As Ben Smith and John Harris suggest on Politico.com today, one must not confuse Emanuel’s tough game playing with ideology. As they and others have argued, Emanuel’s reputation is that of a centrist, who has often sought to reign in the left-wing of his party, “who does not share the reflexively liberal views of many of his House colleagues.” That judgment was seconded by Rep. Jim McCrery (R-LA) who said that Emanuel “is closer to the center, from a policy standpoint, than many of the Democratic Party.”  It was also shared by Lindsey Graham, who said that while a “tough partisan, he understands the need to work together.”  Graham called him “honest, direct, and candid” and a man who will “work to find common ground.”

      You wouldn’t know this, however, if you were listening to and taking your cues from right-wing talk radio.  It doesn’t matter to which radio host you listen to. What you hear is a chorus that seems to think Obama’s Presidency will be the coming of some form of leftwing totalitarianism to America, in which the new Administration will shut down free speech on the radio, force socialized medicine down the nation’s throat, increase the capital gains tax instead of repeal it, give the trade unions more power over the economy and politics, etc.

      This is not to say that the Democrats in Congress will indeed push for many of their favorite entitlement programs, and will want to spend more and to push for an immediate and fairly leftist set of new programs.  But Obama has surrounded himself, especially when it comes to the economy, with sound conservative economic advisors. The men who sat with him at today’s press conference are tough-minded businessmen, who all want our economy to recover and to get back on the track.  

       The real question is how much of a realigning election Obama’s victory is. Harold Meyerson, the social-democratic journalist, argues the case that it is a fundamental one. He senses a shift in an electorate that wants more government activism, and he warns Republicans that their party is on the road to becoming a permanent minority party, based on areas of the country that are primarily rural. It is the opposite of what Karl Rove thought he would be able to build- a permanent Republican realignment.

        Those who believe that the Democrats have produced a realignment that will enable them to govern for decades- the equivalent of the majority FDR built in the 30’s- want Congress to push boldly and quickly. Some have noted that Obama’s majority is not as solid as Roosevelt’s, and that a good portion of the popular vote went for John McCain. Also, Democrats who won in previously Republican districts are in fact conservative Blue Dog Democrats, who do not have the same liberal agenda as many of their House colleagues. As a perceptive column in National Journal puts it, Obama’s temperament suggests that Democrats will not overreach, will seek to keep their forces together, and forge alliances with Republicans. Former Clinton aide Leon Panetta thus thinks that Obama will have to tamp down the expectations of his supporters, and let them know he intends to work slowly for incremental steps forward.

        The worst thing I think conservatives and Republicans can do is decide that their response has to be to dig in their heels and retreat to a rigid, hard-line position based on conservative dogma of yesteryear. They cannot, as Ramesh Ponnuru argues, succeed by simply moving to the right.

http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2008/11/07/againhow-will-obama-govern/

Avoiding the Clutches of Obama Derangement Syndrome

Advice for critics of the president-elect when they feel themselves sliding towards irrational rage.

November 9, 2008 - by Neo-Neocon

First some definitions. When we talk about ODS, or Obama Derangement Syndrome, we are obviously referencing its precursor, BDS — Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Neither phenomenon consists of mere dislike of the policies of the person in question. That’s allowed. One can even distrust the person or think he is lying, if there is evidence for it.

That’s the important part: evidence from behavior in the present. Although we are all emotionally driven in our lives — and there’s nothing wrong with that; who would want to be surrounded by Star Trekian Spocks? — at certain times and places there’s a need to put emotions on the back burner and attempt to evaluate things in the cold harsh light of reason.

Yes, there are reasons to fear that Obama has a far left agenda, based on his history, some of his own statements, and his associations. There are even reasons to believe that whether he does or doesn’t have such an agenda himself, he will lack the inclination (or perhaps the backbone) to stop the far left agenda of those with the power to pass bills — in other words, the hugely Democratic Congress and its leaders Reid and Pelosi.

But I suggest that everyone stand back, take a deep breath, and wait. Wait, and observe. It will become clear enough as Obama chooses a Cabinet and advisers. And then it will become even more clear as he takes office and begins the work of government. More clarity will come as he handles the inevitable crises and tests that will occur on his watch.

The goal of each of us should be to react only to evidence, not fear. That’s not easy. But our task is actually easier than that of our predecessors, the sufferers from BDS. After all, they had an MSM whipping them up into a frenzy twenty-four hours a day. In addition, those on the right have always taken pride in the fact that in their political decisions they are driven more by reason, in contrast to the left’s emotion. Whether or not this is true is not the issue here; the point is that, if conservatives believe it is true, they should act in accordance.

To act in accordance means to act as I wrote recently:

It is necessary both for the sake of the country and our own well-being to give the man a chance to prove those fears wrong. And it is also necessary to hope that he will do so, and to believe that whatever happens, our Constitution and our form of government is not as fragile as all that.

This does not mean that the right should fall asleep at the switch. On the contrary; watchful waiting is the order of the day. The right is correct to start organizing and regrouping and doing a postmortem on what went wrong during this election and during the Bush administration, to avoid future repeats and to emerge stronger. But it only weakens that effort when people fall prey to fears (even seemingly rational ones) and projections.

BDS was a dreadful thing to watch. I agree with Jeffrey Scott Shapiro that it was actually a disgrace — not so much for Bush, who seems unusually resilient in the psychological sense, but for the American people. It did no one any good — not our country, and certainly not those who suffered from it and spread their bile because of it.

As Shapiro writes:

Our failure to stand by the one person who continued to stand by us has not gone unnoticed by our enemies. It has shown to the world how disloyal we can be when our president needed loyalty — a shameful display of arrogance and weakness that will haunt this nation long after Mr. Bush has left the White House.

Once again, I want to emphasize that we are not talking about mere policy disagreements here. We’re talking about demonizing and trashing a person, ascribing to him the worst motivations possible and imagining conspiracy theories everywhere.

I think this happened to a certain segment of the right with Bill Clinton. It was never anywhere near as widespread as BDS later was, but CDS existed and was a slow poison that may have contributed to the later development of BDS on the other side.

I was never a Clinton fan, although I voted for him twice. But I was outraged by those who floated paranoid ideas such as the accusation that he had killed Vince Foster. And I believe to this day that those who encouraged Paula Jones to sue him for harassment — and the Supreme Court that stupidly allowed them to go forward, in what I believe was one of its worst decisions ever — were much less interested in her rights than in mounting a power play to take down a president they despised rather than merely disagreed with.

So everyone, please take a deep breath. Go out and have some fun.

Get your minds off politics for a while, although not forever. Vigilance is needed. But heed the cautionary words of one of my commenters, who wrote after the election:

Yesterday afternoon in a Starbucks, looking out the window at the sidewalk as a young mother walked by pushing a stroller, I found myself thinking something like “Oh, those poor innocents. Look at them, going about their lives when it’ll only be a few more hours before …”

And then I thought: before WHAT? Before the oxygen we breathe is replaced by some toxic chemical? Before the earth skids off its axis? It was as if somebody had given me a good hard salubrious slap across the face, and I thought “I’ve been a little nuts, haven’t I?”

Now that it’s over, I’m so relieved. There’s something so distorting about these political obsessions. Our private loves and our work are so much more important. Of course, that’s the thing: what we fear is that the political will intrude into those private spaces. But I’ve been so hypervigilant that I’ve forgotten to live the life I want to see protected.

When you feel yourself sliding back towards irrational rage (as opposed to rational), remember how destructive BDS was, both to our country and to its unhinged sufferers.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/avoiding-the-clutches-of-obama-derangement-syndrome/