Posted on 03/15/2009 6:22:08 AM PDT by NCjim
Not long ago, after a string of especially bad days for the Obama administration, a veteran Democratic pol approached me with a pained look on his face and asked, "Do you think they know what they're doing?"
The question caught me off guard because the man is a well-known Obama supporter. As we talked, I quickly realized his asking suggested his own considerable doubts.
Yes, it's early, but an eerily familiar feeling is spreading across party lines and seeping into the national conversation. It's a nagging doubt about the competency of the White House.
It was during George W. Bush's second term that the I-word - incompetence - became a routine broadside against him. The Democratic frenzy of Bush-bashing had not spent itself when a larger critique emerged, one not confined by partisan boundaries.
The charge of incompetence covered the mismanagement of Iraq, the response to Hurricane Katrina and the economic meltdown. By the time Bush left, the charge tipped the scales to where most of America, including many who had been supporters or just sympathetic, viewed him as a failed President.
The tag of incompetence is powerful precisely because it is a nondenominational rebuke, even when it yields a partisan result. It became the strongest argument against the GOP hammerlock on Washington and, over two elections, gave Democrats their turn at total control.
But already feelings of doubt are rising again. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were never held in high regard, so doubts about their motives and abilities are not surprising.
What matters more is the growing concern about Obama and his team. The longest campaign in presidential history is being followed by a very short honeymoon.
Polls show that most people like Obama, but they increasingly don't like his policies. The vast spending hikes and plans for more are provoking the most concern, with 82% telling a Gallup survey they are worried about the deficit and 69% worried about the rapid growth of government under Obama. Most expect their own taxes will go up as a result, despite the President's promises to the contrary.
None other than Warren Buffet, an Obama supporter, has called the administration's message on the economy "muddled." Even China says it is worried about its investments in American Treasury bonds. Ouch.
Much of the blame falls on Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, whose appalling tax problems softened the ground under him before he took office. After his initial fumbling presentations, he became a butt of jokes on "Saturday Night Live," not a sustainable image for the point man in a recession. And still the market waits for his answer to the banks' toxic assets.
It's also notable that four people lined up for top jobs under Geithner have withdrawn, leaving one British official to complain that there is nobody to talk to at the Treasury Department. Perhaps it was a bid to combat the Geithner blues that led Larry Summers, Obama's top economic adviser, to make an unusual appearance Friday in which he defended the spending plans everyone is so worried about.
Yet the doubts aren't all about Geithner, and they were reinforced by the bizarre nomination and withdrawal of Chas Freeman as a top intelligence official. It's hard to know which explanation is worse: that the White House didn't know of Freeman's intemperate criticism of Israel and his praise of China's massacre at Tiananmen Square, or that it didn't care. Good riddance to him. But what of those who picked him?
Which brings us to the heart of the matter: the doubts about Obama himself. His famous eloquence is wearing thin through daily exposure and because his actions are often disconnected from his words. His lack of administrative experience is showing.
His promises and policies contradict each other often enough that evidence of hypocrisy is ceasing to be news. Remember the pledges about bipartisanship and high ethics? They're so last year.
The beat goes on. Last week, Obama brazenly gave a speech about earmark reform just after he quietly signed a $410 billion spending bill that had about 9,000 earmarks in it. He denounced Bush's habit of disregarding pieces of laws he didn't like, so-called signing statements, then issued one himself.
And in an absolute jaw-dropper, he told business leaders, "I don't like the idea of spending more government money, nor am I interested in expanding government's role."
No wonder Americans are confused. Our President is, too.
AND CLEAN!
zerO has no concept about how government runs. He was a street organizer who was/is involved with Chicago thug politics. As soon as they got him elected as a senator - he never took the time to even learn that job before he started his campaign for president....the longest campaign in history.
The clue should have been that everything about his personal life was never vetted & was well hidden - to this day.
In essence, a 'pig in a poke' was elected as our president.
If only we had a magical reset button. Oh sorry that is what liberals use in their fantasy world, we on the other hand deal with reality.
Obama has “more than overexposed” himself. Just mouthing lofty, empty speeches is wearing thin.
On! I know where we can get one!! Let's call Hillary.
Speaking of the British, Obama has dissed them bigtime. We have always had a very deep and special relationship with the Brits and his atttitude toward them reflects a stunning ignorance of this history. I hope our British cousins will forgive the slights and let it blow over after Obama is gone.
Terrific article. Thanks for posting.
Freeman’s intemperate criticism of Israel and his praise of China’s massacre at Tiananmen Square,
Praise? What kind of lunatic would praise the Chicoms for
that?
First I’ve seen anything about this, thanks a lot MSM.
More than a bad day: Worries grow that Barack Obama & Co. have a competence problemSo he's an incompetent boob, big deal.
The IMPORTANT thing is that he throws one heck of a Wednesday Night Party. Those Conga Line Dance Parties are a must see event. The beltway in-crowd kill for tickets.
(I wish I WAS kidding, but alas, it's the truth)
And the screams from conservatives that he had no experience is mentioned WHERE? in this article? Like no one saw this coming?
No experience?
Hey! He ran a really, really, really, big, huge, ginormous campaign.
Lindy, you are dead on. If you look at Obama's record he has always watched the game from the bench. Never before in his life has he actually been responsible for the results. So now he does what he has always done, he watches as Pelosi and Reid "do" the liberal agenda.
Historically, America has preferred to elect state governors to the White House because they have executive experience and a record that involves tangible results. This time around we were offered two US Senators. Neither was a good choice, but America decided to bet on a flyer. The result is Obama.
Ok..so what prankster put that statement on his teleprompter..LOL.
Conservatives usually define this character trait by the word - LYING.
----
Liberals are so morally twisted they think judging people by the content of their character instead of the color of their skins ALSO means giving people a PASS on their character because of the color of their skin.
I just don't get it.
Incompetent?
Yes, and on top of that, Central Planning (ie. Socialism, Marxism, Fascism, Communism) simply do not work!
Never have, and Never will work.
This train wreck will not correct itself until he is our of office.
It was always about fooling the easily fooled ... liberals, democrats, uneducated, highly-educated and the low morals crowd that makes up the preponderance of the democrat party.
Just look at his twin in MA... Decal Patrick... and the bang-up job HE is doing...
Hey drive-bys, you wanted him, you’re stuck with him.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.