|  |  |  | | | | | POLITICO - Arena | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | David Mark: President Obama has no choice but to play small ball. After two years of comprehensive policy changes, both voters and leaders are in no mood for large-scale policymaking. Small-scale policy ideas keep the chief executive in the news, while congressional leaders squabble over other policy issues. This is further evidence of the Clintonization of the 2012 Obama re-election effort.
Erika Lovley: Mitt Romney’s campaign raised less than $20 million in the second quarter – notably less than the $23 million Romney took in during the first quarter in 2007, a comparable period when the Republican field was taking shape. http://politi.co/p0SRA2 While his numbers dwarf that of other Republican contenders, the numbers are still small potatoes.
Is this a sign of donor dissatisfaction and challenges to come for the Republican field? And what could this mean for Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s potential presidential bid? Thanks.
Kevin Madden: It's a challenging time to raise money, given the economy. This campaign season also got off to a much slower start for the candidates, as well as donors. But you are wrong that it's "small potatoes." The total from 2007 included a personal donation. This total does not. It's all money raised from donors and it's also all primary money. The cash-on-hand total is also emblematic of a much more efficient operation than the one in 2007. The burn rate was higher back then. Also, that $12.6 million cash-on-hand added to the $12 million being reported by a super PAC means that there's a total reserve of around $25 million in the bank aimed at helping his primary bid. They are in a much stronger position financial position right now than the one we we found ourselves in when I was on the 2008 campaign.
Bill Burton: Mitt Romney's concern should be the millions of dollars worth of donors who abandoned him compared to this time in his last presidential campaign. What is it about him that makes Republican donors like him less the more they know him?
Martin Frost: Romney's numbers are not particularly impressive; however, Rick Perry faces a real challenge in fundraising that has largely been ignored by the press. Texas has no limits on the size of contributions to a statewide race. Thus, in the past he has been able to raise money in chunks of $50,000 and $100,000 from individuals. Federal limits set a low ceiling of $2,500 per individual for a presidential race in the nomination phase. The issue is whether or not there are a sufficient number of bundlers left for Perry to raise the money necessary to make the race. Romney and others may have locked up many of the traditional bundlers even if they haven't yet produced major results.
Margie Omero: Neither primary voters nor donors are coalescing behind Romney. It's the first time in 40 years there hasn't been a clear Republican front runner. And his endless flip flops won't endear him to swing voters either. I don't know if Romney's numbers encourage Perry, but he'll have his own obstacles. Candidates (like Perry) outdoing each other to seem conservative do so at their peril. Whether it's defunding cancer screenings, ending Medicare or protecting corporate jets, the extreme right is certainly not where swing voters reside.
Garry South: Romney's underperformance on fundraising is just another bit of evidence - as if we needed any more - that he's an underwhelming "frontrunner" at best. With the remainder of the current GOP field raising as little as they did (and with Huckabee, Barbour and Daniels out), they clearly weren't draining money and donors away from Romney. His money totals are a comment on Romney himself: no enthusiasm, no excitement.
Ginny Brown-Waite: The field is wide open and even more candidates may jump in. Therefore, some donors may be sitting on the sidelines until the herd is culled.
Jonathan Prince: The good news for Romney is that his numbers do dwarf the numbers of his primary opponents, underscoring his status as the man to beat for the nomination. The bad news for Romney is bad news for the Republican party, because his drop-off, echoed by the weak numbers across the Republican field, demonstrates a remarkable lack of voter enthusiasm and interest in the nominating contest.In the first quarter of 2007, the top three Democrats (Obama, Clinton, and Edwards) raised a combined $60 million plus; the top three Republicans (Romney, Giuliani, and McCain) raised north of $50 million. In this quarter (the second quarter, but the first real quarter of the contest given its late start) it's hard to imagine that the top three Republicans will raise more than $30 million combined. Which is what Barack Obama raised by himself in the second quarter of 2007.
Bottom line - the Republican fundraising numbers make it clear that Mitt Romney is the clear front-runner for the Republican nomination, and Barack Obama is the clear front-runner for the presidency.
Mike Fraioli: Until the 2008, the Obama campaign blew the doors off presidential campaign fundraising, $20 million in one quarter was more than a respectable amount and certainly not “small potatoes." GOP donors can sit on the sidelines waiting for Mr. / Ms. Right if they choose. But unless Romney stumbles hard, there is not anyone in the GOP field either running or mentioned who can beat him.
Sandy Maisel: I think the comparative numbers are key here, especially the comparison to TPaw. Romney wisely is separating primary money from general election money in this cycle, so the number — while lower — is not a sign of weakness. He still has more than $13 million on hand; and he is spending only about a third of what he is bringing in.
Julian E. Zelizer: It means the field is weak. There is either an opportunity for another Republican to win over some of the money that is out there, or this will be a season where Republican donors, lacking confidence, hold back
Soren Dayton: There are several dynamics. A lot of candidates found fundraising a tough quarter. But the presidential race was a major focus for many donors, and Romney had a shot at sending a decisive message. His campaign sent strong signals that they would have much better performance and pushed their bundlers hard.
This shows that donors are sitting on their hands right now. Maybe it is for Perry. Maybe it is a recognition of Romney's weakness in general.
Jeffrey Taylor: $18 million raised in a field of 10 or more announced and unannounced candidates for the GOP nomination? Small potatoes? Good grief! $18 million is a tremendous haul - especially in a crowded field. Combining Romney’s totals with the money raised by the other GOP candidates last quarter, I would say it reflects donor excitement rather than donor dissatisfaction. This is the media manufacturing a problem and conflict where one does not exist. When Governor Perry takes in $18 million next quarter, then we might see some fireworks, but until that time, every Republican in the race will be exploring every avenue available to achieve the eye-popping fundraising success of Mitt Romney. There are plenty of news stories associated with the candidates for the GOP nomination - there is no need to make one up.
David Biespiel: Disaffection or not, Gov. Romney will do just fine. Almost all of his fundraising is for the primary only; he can go back to his funders for another give for the general later on if he's the nominee. Plus, his Super PAC raised over $12 million this quarter - add that to his "paltry" $23 million and it's a considerable haul. The burn rate (31%) leaves a question mark: how much will Romney have "on hand" when he needs to spend in the early caucuses and primaries? That's going to be the figure to watch.
What does it mean for Texas Gov. Perry? Nothing. In 2010 he raised over $20 million for his reelection. His "presidential primary" campaign could dial that much up and more in a jiffy should he enter the race for the GOP nomination. But, one caveat: Texas has no limits to campaign donations - that is, Perry's haul was in very large sums. Running for president requires many donors. That could slow Perry's money-machine down. And, more important, Perry still has to campaign! Campaigning for president has broken many a candidate far more viable than Rick Perry.
Greg Dworkin: By historical standards, Mitt Romney is a weak front-runner, but the frontrunner he remains. His numbers aren't awesome, but he'll have all the money he'll need to compete. Still, there's nothing here to discourage a strong challenge form his right flank, most likely by Michele Bachmann and possibly by secessionist Gov. Rick Perry, though he'll have to battle Bachmann for hearts and minds. The Very Serious candidates Tim Pawlenty and Jon Huntsman continue to languish in appeal, fundraising and in polls, and at some point, the media will realize these guys are not viable this year and stop pretending they are.
If you want a laugh, mention Newt Gingrich's name. But whether you do or you don't, Romney will likely be the nominee, simply because Republicans want to beat Obama this year and they think Romney has the best shot. For Perry or Bachmann to challenge that conventional wisdom, they'll have to show they have a path to win in November, something they have not done.
And, by the way, if Romney is the nominee, it will be more evidence that the tea party's diminishing influence does not go far beyond Republican circles, and even within those circles is seen as a drag on the party's eventual nominee.
Alvin S. Felzenberg: In case nobody has noticed, the economy remains weak and many fear a double dip recession is looming. That makes Romney's success in raising funds all the more impressive. Some donors are holding back as they wait to see what ideas Romney has to offer to grow the economy. Others may be giving Huntsman a look. In these tough times, perhaps the media should be asking whether Obama really needs a billion dollars - in addition to all the taxpayer time he consumes campaigning 24/7 to get his message out. We are, after all, levying a president and not a fundraiser in chief. If they do, perhaps Obama's would-be replacements would be judged by the ideas they offer and less by how much they raise. I have not seen much in the ideas department.
David Mark: President Barack Obama is taking a cue from President Bill Clinton by pushing a series of bite-sized policies. Among them: a new fatherhood pledge, graphic tobacco warnings, updated sunscreen requirements, an anti-bullying summit and entertainment discounts for fathers to spend more time with their kids. Can President Obama use this "school uniforms" approach to effectively appear above the daily partisan Washington sniping? And is this "small ball" approach a retreat from the grander "change we can believe in" vision candidate Obama touted in the 2008 campaign?
Rep. John Fleming: Americans are fed up with President Obama micromanaging the lives and life behavior of Americans. The president has important work to do like solving the loss of 20 million jobs and a looming debt crisis, which he has failed to address. Americans would much prefer that he do the job he was elected to do.
State Del. Samuel Rosenberg: When you have a not so loyal opposition, whose Senate leader has said his primary goal is the defeat of the president, it is well nigh possible to pass substantive legislation, except in a crisis. Hence small ball.
Karen Floyd: As I read this morning’s question, I immediately thought about a book published in 2010 titled, “Switch, How to Change Things When Change Is Hard.” Though the authors, Chip and David Heath, are better known for the bestseller, “Made to Stick,” the premise of this book is how to affect transformative change through “little bite-size victories.”
The book cites a premise about a fundamental resistance to change caused by a tension between an individual’s emotional and rational side. When a task/vision “feels” too big, the emotional side will resist. Thus, to avoid emotional sabotage, change is more readily sustainable through small, quantifiable targets leading to small victories. The theory is that a series of “small wins” will create a positive spiral of behavioral change, which ultimately will create transformative change.
The underlying motive of President Obama’s “school uniforms” approach is unknown. If the intent is primarily one of appearance, to offer a contrast to daily partisan Washington sniping, he may succeed in the short term. But without a quantifiable/measurable end that he can articulate, this approach will fail in the long term and the American public will see this for what it is.Whether this “small ball” approach is intended for public relations/optics purposes or whether this is done as a catalyst for the grander “change we can believe in” vision then-candidate Obama touted in the 2008 campaign, no one really knows.
What we do know is the president’s policies to date have been harshly criticized for their ineffective and destructive results. As one colleague succinctly put it, his efforts at eating the elephant in one bite have been summarily rejected by the American people, so he is trying to eat the elephant one bite at a time.
But it is important to keep in mind that President Clinton’s success with this approach has little relevance to this president, because the socio-economic environment in which President Clinton was operating was so vastly different. The economic boom times of the mid- to late-90s was in many ways the perfect context in which to use this approach. Today, with the nation facing more (and more serious) domestic problems and potential foreign relations pitfalls than at any time in perhaps a generation, sunscreen requirements and discounts for disengaged dads just isn’t going to cut it – nor should it.
David N. Bossie: Barring an unforeseen national security emergency, the 2012 election will boil down to jobs jobs jobs. With an unemployment rate at 9.1 percent, and new numbers coming out at the end of the week, President Obama’s electoral fate is directly tied to the unemployment number. His policies have failed the American people, and his “small ball” approach will not right the course of our country.
When over 60 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track - bold action needs to be taken. President Obama and Democrats in Congress continue to be timid in their approach in dealing with the economy and the national debt. Tough choices need to be made, and President Obama seems not to be able to make those tough choices because he fears blowback from his liberal constituency.
Christine Pelosi: School uniforms presidency? Please. I wore a Catholic school uniform for over ten years and I've seen kids bullied - the two are incomparable. More fair to call Barack Obama the Dad in Chief as he has been using his bully pulpit for anti-bullying pro-fatherhood messages ever since his "Dreams of My Father" book tour years ago. Barack Obama has consistently advised parents "turn off the remote and read to your kids," told kids "pull up your pants and go to class" and reminded all that bullying has no place in American society. That president and Mrs. Obama continue their parenting and mentoring advocacy now when the Republican Congress has gridlocked Washington does not render those crucial life lessons any less important.
With the Republicans threatening to repeal the progress President Obama achieved in health care reform, student loan reform, Wall Street reform, and don't ask don't tell repeal there is not a whole lot of room for transformational change, but the president just insisted upon it again yesterday with respect to tax and entitlement reforms. Ask any Republican candidate for president - they seem to think the changes Obama makes continue to transform America, or they wouldn't be running to stop him.
Ginny Brown-Waite: My initial reaction to the "small ball" question is his policy is smaller than a marble and kind of like a carnival huckster with the small bean under a cup.
State Rep. Josh Byrnes: These are probably all great things but you are correct in that they are small ball items. The discussion dealing with the economy, national debt, and budgets are too deep to get away from. People are focused on the fiscal issues and will not be distracted by a these smaller policy pieces. The Republican candidates for president will not allow that to happen! As far as the disgust Americans have in daily partisan sniping...that is entrenched in the minds of Americans and will not go away with a couple bite-sized policies.
President Obama has some major hills to climb and I don't think he should spend his time on anything other than getting a fiscal plan in place by Aug. 2. I have been witnessing the fallout in Minnesota firsthand and I don't think the president would like to be part a similar public relations nightmare on Aug. 3.
Shamira M. Gelbman: It's unquestionably a retreat from the visionary rhetoric of the 2008 campaign and probably not one that will help the president transcend partisan bickering. If anything, these particular "small ball"
initiatives will only draw more ire over the impending "nanny state".
Christian Grose: Is Dick Morris surreptitiously advising President Obama? The same strategy was effective for Bill Clinton in 1996. The difference between 1996 and the present is that the American economy seems to still be sputtering today while it was well on its way back in 1996. Obama needs a strong economy to win reelection, not just the "small ball" policies.
Roger Pilon: The president has two main responsibilities: internationally, to oversee the nation's foreign policy; domestically, to see that the laws be faithfully executed. For Obama to devote his attention to trivia like this is not only to demean the office of the presidency - recall Clinton's "boxers or briefs" incident - but to play to the basest instincts of the electorate.
Unfortunately, in a country in which nearly 60 percent of adults don't know when we declared our independence and a quarter don't know from what country, Obama's "small ball" politics may just work. This is a president who couldn't get a budget passed for two years, despite having huge majorities in Congress, yet he's got time for this. Perhaps H.L. Mencken's put it best: "People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard." I didn't know Obama was a student of Mencken.
Scott Sales: I can’t help but answer the question with a series of questions. A new fatherhood pledge, really, with all of economic challenges facing our nation this is what the administration is now focused on? Has the President or any of his staff ever read or meditated on the U.S. Constitution? Where in the enumerated powers of the federal government are any of these ideas found? It is beyond time that President Obama and his staff start addressing the pressing financial problems that are plaguing our nation and quit their desire to expand the nanny state. As a free and independent people, I think we are capable of choosing which sunscreen to use, how much time to spend with our children and I think that all of us have figured out that tobacco is bad for your health. If we haven’t, as a nation, we may be beyond hope.
Ron Faucheux: While a "small ball" approach worked politically for President Clinton in the mid-90s, it is not likely to work for President Obama today because the issues now are too big. We are in a major economic slump with no end in sight, face a massive debt problem, and are at war. The American people want leadership and results. It's time for a tuba, not a clarinet.
Tevi Troy: While it is encouraging to see President Obama tone down his ambitious and expensive efforts to expand government's role in our economy, the fact of the matter is that we still face huge problems that require presidential leadership. It's fine to talk about fatherhood, sunscreen, and the like, but if we do not address the debt crisis - and soon - Americans will be paying the price for decades to come.
Michael Parkin : This small ball approach would make a lot more sense if there were not such large problems on the table. These policies may make some think that Obama is not fully focused on the big issues.
Peter Roff: Oh, how the mighty have fallen. The grand plans for change, the hopeful rhetoric have gone sailing out the window in favor of fatherhood pledges, tobacco warnings that are straight out of a Chris Buckley novel and other items, all the better to secure the president’s re-election. The reality, the sad reality, is that on many of the important issues Obama - not the administration but the president himself - has been AWOL. He has failed to show leadership apart from giving a speech here and there that, in the end, was not very persuasive. He has mishandled the economy, bungled the stimulus, failed to lead on the budget crisis, given the responsibility for dealing with the debt ceiling to others and, in general, been of far less significance than his electoral mandate led most people to believe he would be. In short, he was only prepared to win, not to govern.
This, in and of itself, is an important lesson for the Republicans leading in to the 2012 election. They must nominate a candidate who is not only prepared to win but to govern, as Reagan was in 1981 and George W. Bush was 20 years later. “Hope” and "change” are words, perhaps even slogans. They are not plans and they are not an agenda for leading the nation. Obama had no plan and so was not prepared for the challenges he faced once elected, something that is becoming clearer as each day passes.
Even after more than two years in the White House, which should have been enough time for even the slowest, most inept chief executive to formulate a cohesive vision for leadership, Obama is still reacting. Now he is trying to triangulate, which might work if the economy were prospering; but it isn’t. So it won’t.
Alvin S. Felzenberg: Obama's venture down the "nanny state" road, rather than make him appear above the partisan fray, makes him appear even more remote from what Americans care most about, jobs. As he seeks to emulate Bill Clinton, who Newsweek tells me, has more of a jobs plan than does the current president, Obama forgets that in the Clinton era, the economy was strong. It is becoming increasingly clear to the American people that his president will do absolutely anything to avoid the hard work necessary to bring about a sustained economic recovery. That, of course, would entail moving away from policies and attitudes that only please his rapidly shrinking base.
Mike Fraioli: Early on, Sen. McConnell stated that the single most important thing they (the Republicans) can achieve is to make sure Obama is a one-term president. He wants Obama to fail. Obama needs to keep this front and center every time the Republicans invite him to negotiate. They are unwilling to have meaningful discussions and McConnell’s statement is the best indication of that. The “small ball” items are important, but with the economy the way it is, please leave tobacco warnings and sunscreen to the appropriate cabinet officials.
Obama can’t afford - our country can’t afford - to lose our focus on jobs and the economy.
Scott Paterno: This is the act of a failed president and a floundering presidency. Mired in an economic swamp, we are being offered feel good micro-policies that will do about as much to improve American life as Gerry Ford handing out WIN buttons back in '74.
Will these measures be politically effective? Moderately, perhaps, in the short term. They will, after all, probably be the only truly popular policies he has enacted (who is against dad and kids time?) - but they also will be dwarfed by the huge elephant in the room: the total failure of all of the president's economic policies.After all, when Bill was successfully playing small ball he had the wind at his back - the economy was booming, unemployment was almost below structural levels, and most Americans saw the future in positive terms. Bill was trying to distract people from personal failings, not policy ineptitude. And, bluntly, a strong economy will cover even something as large as Bill's impressive personal baggage.
Conversely the current POTUS is by all accounts an excellent father and a devoted husband, but who, as president, has watched the economy worsen by almost every measure since he took office. Small ball will never distract that fact from the American electorate.
But when you can't cut a deal your base likes and your signature initiative is still more hated than liked, you have to do SOMETHING, right?
Darrell M. West: President Obama has no choice but to play small ball. After two years of comprehensive policy changes, both voters and leaders are in no mood for large-scale policymaking. Small-scale policy ideas keep the chief executive in the news, while congressional leaders squabble over other policy issues. This is further evidence of the Clintonization of the 2012 Obama re-election effort.
Michael D. Ostrolenk: President Obama is not living up to the expectations he and his campaign set for him for the American people. He was supposed to be about 'change' but he continues the same failed policies of the Bush and Clinton Administrations. Let's take a look at his bite-sized policies in light of his 'change' motto. A new fatherhood pledge; if he was serious about protecting the family in general and fatherhood in particular, he would reign in the Federal Reserve. The Fed has done more damage to American families than any other institution in America by destroying the value of the dollar and giving us boom and bust cycles. President Obama's FDA is giving us graphic tobacco warnings. If he was serious about American health, he would call for the repeal of Obamacare, aka corporate welfare, end all subsidies to big agriculture, cut the ties with Pharma and the insurance companies, stop the FDA war against American farmers and natural medicines and stop promoting processed food as part of the school lunch program.The administration's anti-bullying summit would go much farther ( it's quite questionable if the federal government should be involved in this issue at all) if the federal government would model better behavior itself. U.S. foreign policy is based on bullying our allies and threatening our so-called enemies. Much of the national security state is also based on bullying. Just consider how the TSA treats innocent American citizens.
What President Obama really needs to do instead of small gestures that sound nice but are mostly useless is to show leadership. The 'change' we need now is about cutting government spending including the military, fundamental tax reform, re-prioritizing the US governments spending, moving toward a more non-interventionist foreign policy, refocusing the national security state to legitimate concerns within a constitutional framework and ending corporate welfare.
An America whose government spent a lot less, no longer borrowed and indebted its citizens to foreign countries, protected its citizens liberties and property, could not print money out of thin air and did not act as the world's policeman would flourish.
Dean Baker: Given the quality of the Washington press corps, the school uniform approach is virtually a slam dunk. Most senior reporters couldn't tell the difference between an alleged affair and nuclear war if their lives depended on it.
Brad Bannon: The Founders built a system of checks and balances to stop one branch from dominating the others. This has been successful most of the time and prevented the rise of a a "man on a white horse" or a dictator. The president has a lot of leeway over foreign policy but little running room on the domestic side. Checks and balances limit the power the president has to lead the nation to systematically tackle major problems facing the U.S. like global economic competition and environmental decay. Which is why we get "school uniform" presidencies that only rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.
Ken Feltman: President Obama's "small ball" agenda - updated sunscreen labeling, tougher tobacco warning, etc. - shows how far off track the "Yes We Can" agenda is. People will either welcome the smaller ideas, shrug or cry "nanny state."
But most voters will stay focused on their agenda for Washington: Jobs and the economy. That is where the rubber meets the road and the president needs to come down to reality and gain some traction through jobs creation.
Jason Huff: The president is delivering change, be it in great leaps or incrementally. Although these initiatives may seem small, they add up to a platform of great progress. To kids that are bullied or missing their fathers, these programs are world changers. The investment we make in children pay off in dividends that cannot just be measured in money (although children and families that have more support have a better chance at higher education and fulfilling work). Sometimes, it really does have to be about the contributors to our future society, not to the campaign contributors of today.
David Biespiel: C'mon. It's not Christmas everyday. From passing universal health care reform to rescuing the U.S. auto industry to capturing and killing Osama bin Laden, the Obama presidency has had plenty of change we can believe in large bold actions. Leadership is in the fine print.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | Ginny Brown-Waite: My initial reaction to the "small ball" question is his policy is smaller than a marble and kind of like a carnival huckster with the small bean under a cup.
Michael D. Ostrolenk: President Obama is not living up to the expectations he and his campaign set for him for the American people. He was supposed to be about 'change' but he continues the same failed policies of the Bush and Clinton Administrations. Let's take a look at his bite-sized policies in light of his 'change' motto. A new fatherhood pledge; if he was serious about protecting the family in general and fatherhood in particular, he would reign in the Federal Reserve. The Fed has done more damage to American families than any other institution in America by destroying the value of the dollar and giving us boom and bust cycles. President Obama's FDA is giving us graphic tobacco warnings. If he was serious about American health, he would call for the repeal of Obamacare, aka corporate welfare, end all subsidies to big agriculture, cut the ties with Pharma and the insurance companies, stop the FDA war against American farmers and natural medicines and stop promoting processed food as part of the school lunch program.The administration's anti-bullying summit would go much farther ( it's quite questionable if the federal government should be involved in this issue at all) if the federal government would model better behavior itself. U.S. foreign policy is based on bullying our allies and threatening our so-called enemies. Much of the national security state is also based on bullying. Just consider how the TSA treats innocent American citizens.
What President Obama really needs to do instead of small gestures that sound nice but are mostly useless is to show leadership. The 'change' we need now is about cutting government spending including the military, fundamental tax reform, re-prioritizing the US governments spending, moving toward a more non-interventionist foreign policy, refocusing the national security state to legitimate concerns within a constitutional framework and ending corporate welfare.
An America whose government spent a lot less, no longer borrowed and indebted its citizens to foreign countries, protected its citizens liberties and property, could not print money out of thin air and did not act as the world's policeman would flourish.
Peter Roff: Oh, how the mighty have fallen. The grand plans for change, the hopeful rhetoric have gone sailing out the window in favor of fatherhood pledges, tobacco warnings that are straight out of a Chris Buckley novel and other items, all the better to secure the president’s re-election. The reality, the sad reality, is that on many of the important issues Obama - not the administration but the president himself - has been AWOL. He has failed to show leadership apart from giving a speech here and there that, in the end, was not very persuasive. He has mishandled the economy, bungled the stimulus, failed to lead on the budget crisis, given the responsibility for dealing with the debt ceiling to others and, in general, been of far less significance than his electoral mandate led most people to believe he would be. In short, he was only prepared to win, not to govern.
This, in and of itself, is an important lesson for the Republicans leading in to the 2012 election. They must nominate a candidate who is not only prepared to win but to govern, as Reagan was in 1981 and George W. Bush was 20 years later. “Hope” and "change” are words, perhaps even slogans. They are not plans and they are not an agenda for leading the nation. Obama had no plan and so was not prepared for the challenges he faced once elected, something that is becoming clearer as each day passes.
Even after more than two years in the White House, which should have been enough time for even the slowest, most inept chief executive to formulate a cohesive vision for leadership, Obama is still reacting. Now he is trying to triangulate, which might work if the economy were prospering; but it isn’t. So it won’t.
Roger Pilon: The president has two main responsibilities: internationally, to oversee the nation's foreign policy; domestically, to see that the laws be faithfully executed. For Obama to devote his attention to trivia like this is not only to demean the office of the presidency - recall Clinton's "boxers or briefs" incident - but to play to the basest instincts of the electorate.
Unfortunately, in a country in which nearly 60 percent of adults don't know when we declared our independence and a quarter don't know from what country, Obama's "small ball" politics may just work. This is a president who couldn't get a budget passed for two years, despite having huge majorities in Congress, yet he's got time for this. Perhaps H.L. Mencken's put it best: "People deserve the government they get, and they deserve to get it good and hard." I didn't know Obama was a student of Mencken.
Scott Sales: I can’t help but answer the question with a series of questions. A new fatherhood pledge, really, with all of economic challenges facing our nation this is what the administration is now focused on? Has the President or any of his staff ever read or meditated on the U.S. Constitution? Where in the enumerated powers of the federal government are any of these ideas found? It is beyond time that President Obama and his staff start addressing the pressing financial problems that are plaguing our nation and quit their desire to expand the nanny state. As a free and independent people, I think we are capable of choosing which sunscreen to use, how much time to spend with our children and I think that all of us have figured out that tobacco is bad for your health. If we haven’t, as a nation, we may be beyond hope.
David Mark: President Obama has no choice but to play small ball. After two years of comprehensive policy changes, both voters and leaders are in no mood for large-scale policymaking. Small-scale policy ideas keep the chief executive in the news, while congressional leaders squabble over other policy issues. This is further evidence of the Clintonization of the 2012 Obama re-election effort.
Mike Fraioli: Early on, Sen. McConnell stated that the single most important thing they (the Republicans) can achieve is to make sure Obama is a one-term president. He wants Obama to fail. Obama needs to keep this front and center every time the Republicans invite him to negotiate. They are unwilling to have meaningful discussions and McConnell’s statement is the best indication of that. The “small ball” items are important, but with the economy the way it is, please leave tobacco warnings and sunscreen to the appropriate cabinet officials.
Obama can’t afford - our country can’t afford - to lose our focus on jobs and the economy.
David Mark: President Barack Obama is taking a cue from President Bill Clinton by pushing a series of bite-sized policies. Among them: a new fatherhood pledge, graphic tobacco warnings, updated sunscreen requirements, an anti-bullying summit and entertainment discounts for fathers to spend more time with their kids. Can President Obama use this "school uniforms" approach to effectively appear above the daily partisan Washington sniping? And is this "small ball" approach a retreat from the grander "change we can believe in" vision candidate Obama touted in the 2008 campaign?
State Del. Samuel Rosenberg: When you have a not so loyal opposition, whose Senate leader has said his primary goal is the defeat of the president, it is well nigh possible to pass substantive legislation, except in a crisis. Hence small ball.
Tevi Troy: While it is encouraging to see President Obama tone down his ambitious and expensive efforts to expand government's role in our economy, the fact of the matter is that we still face huge problems that require presidential leadership. It's fine to talk about fatherhood, sunscreen, and the like, but if we do not address the debt crisis - and soon - Americans will be paying the price for decades to come.
Scott Paterno: This is the act of a failed president and a floundering presidency. Mired in an economic swamp, we are being offered feel good micro-policies that will do about as much to improve American life as Gerry Ford handing out WIN buttons back in '74.
Will these measures be politically effective? Moderately, perhaps, in the short term. They will, after all, probably be the only truly popular policies he has enacted (who is against dad and kids time?) - but they also will be dwarfed by the huge elephant in the room: the total failure of all of the president's economic policies.After all, when Bill was successfully playing small ball he had the wind at his back - the economy was booming, unemployment was almost below structural levels, and most Americans saw the future in positive terms. Bill was trying to distract people from personal failings, not policy ineptitude. And, bluntly, a strong economy will cover even something as large as Bill's impressive personal baggage.
Conversely the current POTUS is by all accounts an excellent father and a devoted husband, but who, as president, has watched the economy worsen by almost every measure since he took office. Small ball will never distract that fact from the American electorate.
But when you can't cut a deal your base likes and your signature initiative is still more hated than liked, you have to do SOMETHING, right?
Alvin S. Felzenberg: Obama's venture down the "nanny state" road, rather than make him appear above the partisan fray, makes him appear even more remote from what Americans care most about, jobs. As he seeks to emulate Bill Clinton, who Newsweek tells me, has more of a jobs plan than does the current president, Obama forgets that in the Clinton era, the economy was strong. It is becoming increasingly clear to the American people that his president will do absolutely anything to avoid the hard work necessary to bring about a sustained economic recovery. That, of course, would entail moving away from policies and attitudes that only please his rapidly shrinking base.
Darrell M. West: President Obama has no choice but to play small ball. After two years of comprehensive policy changes, both voters and leaders are in no mood for large-scale policymaking. Small-scale policy ideas keep the chief executive in the news, while congressional leaders squabble over other policy issues. This is further evidence of the Clintonization of the 2012 Obama re-election effort.
Dean Baker: Given the quality of the Washington press corps, the school uniform approach is virtually a slam dunk. Most senior reporters couldn't tell the difference between an alleged affair and nuclear war if their lives depended on it.
| | | | | | | | | |  | |  | |  |
没有评论:
发表评论