Free Markets, Free People

Michael Barone: The Three Rules Of Obama

Michale Barone, observing the Obama presidency as it unfolds, has penned his own “Three Rules of Obama”.

Rule one:

First, Obama likes to execute long-range strategies but suffers from cognitive dissonance when new facts render them inappropriate.

Barone cites Obama’s long range strategy of conciliatory diplomacy with the likes of Iran and North Korea being “undercut by North Korea’s missile launches and demonstrations in Iran against the mullah regime’s apparent election fraud.”

His assumption that friendly words could melt the hearts of Kim Jong Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad have been refuted by events. He limits himself to expressing “deep concern” about the election in the almost surely vain hope of persuading the mullahs to abandon their drive for nuclear weapons, while he misses his chance to encourage the one result — regime change — that could protect us and our allies from Iranian attack.

Obama apologist continue to insist his policy of “restraint” is the right course. Events and history seem to argue otherwise. Bottom line: not very agile when his presumptions are shattered.

Rule two:

Second, he does not seem to care much about the details of policy.

The “closing” of Guantanamo is perhaps the perfect example. Obviously politically satisfying at the time it was announced, its execution has been an absolute fiasco. None of the underlying problems of closing the prison had apparently been researched or considered when the promise was made.

And that’s not the only example:

He subcontracted the stimulus package to congressional appropriators, the cap-and-trade legislation to Henry Waxman and Edward Markey, and his health care program to Max Baucus. The result is incoherent public policy: indefensible pork barrel projects, a carbon emissions bill that doesn’t limit carbon emissions from politically connected industries, and a health care program priced by the Congressional Budget Office at a fiscally unfeasible $1,600,000,000,000.

Obama sees himself as the grand vision guy and it is up to his minions to put his vision together. Of course, that sort of outsourcing is bound to come up against competing agendas. He doesn’t seem to take that into account, apparently doesn’t do the necessary work to assure his version of his agenda is the dominant one and the result is chaos. Bottom line: his legislative and executive inexperience is the worst enemy of his aggressive agenda.

Rule three:

Third, he does business Chicago-style.

“Transparency” and “openness” are now just a words as he and his administration begin to insist on more and more executive privilege. And there’s also the example of the IG mess, not to mention the stories of threats and intimidation toward auto company bond holders and banks.

Key point?

From Chicago he brings the assumption that there will always be a bounteous private sector that can be plundered endlessly on behalf of political favorites.

Just ask the UAW (and other unions) and ACORN. And Barone uses precisely the right word here – plunder. All of his grand plans are based on plundering the rich and redistributing the spoils to favorites. A more destructive presidency is hard to imagine.

Hope and change.

~McQ

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUponShare on RedditPin on PinterestEmail this to someone

8 Responses to Michael Barone: The Three Rules Of Obama

  • The good news: His inexperience and ineptitude will keep much of his agenda from moving much past the ‘talking about it’ stage. Sure, we’ll probably see watered down versions of some things, but nothing as bad as it could have been, and hopefully bad enough to wake people up to get these clowns out of office in 2010-2012.

    I’m remaining optimistic a more Classical Liberal movement is afoot.

  • I noticed that after the September crash in the stock market, Obama still was pitching the same economic plan he had 18 months before.  Some may call the guy consistent on his central themes, but this is worse than what got George Bush called “inflexible.”
    The word “lemming” and the “Woodchuck Festival of Peace, Love, and Death” comes to mind.

  • There is a fourth rule Baron should add: The Clown’s™ horrific naiveté has rendered him the shadow of Jimmy Carter, making this the second disastrous administration in that mold since 1981.

    Then, we had two Secretaries of State, Cyrus Vance and Edmund Muskie, who had no power and diplomacy was run from the White House. Here we have Hillary Clinton at Foggy Bottom who is about as useful as a tea server in a coffee bar. Since the Iranian election, she had held ONE press conference (yes, I know – she did break her elbow), in which she spent more time telling jokes with the reporters than denouncing Iran’s thugs-in-power.

    At the end of Jimmy Carter’s administration in 1981, Reagan was forced to reconstruct US diplomacy from the ground up. Once the Maladministration of The Clown™ ends in January 2013, the next President will need years to undo the damage The Dear Leader™ is doing to the US daily.

  • Obama apologist continue to insist his policy of “restraint” is the right course.
     
    Is everyone who believes in his policy of restraint now damned as an Obama apologist?
     
    If so, then does that not validate every fly-by commenter over the years who have damned you as a Bush apologist for supporting the Iraq war?
    That’s a hazardous road my man.  Best to steer clear of such potholes.
     
    Sure there are apologists out there.  But not everyone who disagrees with McQ on this issue is an Obama apologist.
     
    Cheers.

    • Gee Pogue – those who constantly gin up excuses for what Obama says and does are “Obama apologists”. That’s a specific category. That doesn’t mean everyone is an Obama apologist or that everyone who thinks “restraint” is good falls into that category either, does it? This isn’t tough stuff buddy – it’s a specific group of people. Bush apologists – we have some here as commenters. You know who they are. No matter what Bush did they had an excuse or some sort of spin to put on it. That certainly didn’t include all the commenters, even those who generally thought Bush was right about what he did.

      Well guess what? We have Obama apologists too.

  • I’d feel better about his ‘restraint’ if I was convinced it WAS part of a real plan.
    I don’t get that sense,  and nothing in his actual history of operation leads me to believe he HAS a plan for this.  He’s just drifting along in the current of history, hoping that some lucky break will come his way rather than figuring out how he can maybe use the awesome power of the President of the United States to make a positive change in the course of the stream.  The gipper would have found a way that he might monopolize on this sort of situation, even if he KNEW when he was done that the regime, still probably in power, was going to be irked at us.
    Iran’s regime already doesn’t like us, they already blame us.  Obama might as well stop trying to please both the regime AND the populace of Iran with his tighrope walk.  He needs to take a longer term view, accept the fact the Mullahs are going to stick with their approach to not liking us, and take advantage of the fact that the great Satan could be made a little more friendly to the man on the street in Tehran.
    I mean, what’s the worst that can happen with that?  Are we afraid they’ll start smuggling IED’s into Iraq to kill Americans?  Are we afraid they’ll talk about blowing Israel up?  Are we afraid they’re try and acquire nuclear weapons?  Maybe harass shipping in the straights of Hormuz?
    Surely he has SOMEONE around him who can come up with something more helpful than telling everyone how troubled he is and how we’re gonna bear witness to how the government crushes resistance.
     
     

  • Third, he does business Chicago-style.
    I don’t remember anyone believing me when I said it…  but it’s been a while and my memory is shot.