(5/29/10): “He Was Supposed to Be Competent” (WSJ by Peggy Noonan)

[sojourner]

He Was Supposed to Be Competent
The spill is a disaster for the president and his political philosophy.
I don't see how the president's position and popularity can survive the oil spill. This is his third political disaster in his first 18 months in office. And they were all, as they say, unforced errors, meaning they were shaped by the president's political judgment and instincts.

There was the tearing and unnecessary war over his health-care proposal and its cost. There was his day-to-day indifference to the views and hopes of the majority of voters regarding illegal immigration. And now the past almost 40 days of dodging and dithering in the face of an environmental calamity. I don't see how you politically survive this.

The president, in my view, continues to govern in a way that suggests he is chronically detached from the central and immediate concerns of his countrymen. This is a terrible thing to see in a political figure, and a startling thing in one who won so handily and shrewdly in 2008. But he has not, almost from the day he was inaugurated, been in sync with the center. The heart of the country is thinking each day about A, B and C, and he is thinking about X, Y and Z. They're in one reality, he's in another.


The American people have spent at least two years worrying that high government spending would, in the end, undo the republic. They saw the dollars gushing night and day, and worried that while everything looked the same on the surface, our position was eroding. They have worried about a border that is in some places functionally and of course illegally open, that it too is gushing night and day with problems that states, cities and towns there cannot solve.

And now we have a videotape metaphor for all the public's fears: that clip we see every day, on every news show, of the well gushing black oil into the Gulf of Mexico and toward our shore. You actually don't get deadlier as a metaphor for the moment than that, the monster that lives deep beneath the sea.

In his news conference Thursday, President Obama made his position no better. He attempted to act out passionate engagement through the use of heightened language—"catastrophe," etc.—but repeatedly took refuge in factual minutiae. His staff probably thought this demonstrated his command of even the most obscure facts. Instead it made him seem like someone who won't see the big picture. The unspoken mantra in his head must have been, "I will not be defensive, I will not give them a resentful soundbite." But his strategic problem was that he'd already lost the battle. If the well was plugged tomorrow, the damage will already have been done. Source (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704269204575270950789108846.html)

[foxyladi]

that red stuff in the water isn't all oil..there is some blood too and the sharks are circling:(

[sojourner]

Perhaps Chris Matthews started worrying he was being out-shined in the tirade department by James Carville. Just ahead of President Obama’s press conference earlier today Matthews went on his own rant about how the Louisiana coast line is “part of our birthright, with the Grand Canyon, with Niagara Falls, with Yosemite.” And then he directed this zinger at Obama:
The Gulf of Mexico is more important than a Presidency, and the president has not acted that way, he has not acted like this is more important than a fundraiser in California, or an interview about basketball with Marv Albert. Source (http://www.mediaite.com/tv/chris-matthews-the-gulf-of-mexico-is-more-important-than-a-presidency/)
When Matthews and Carville go after him on this you know he is in trouble.

[Kbentleyis]

Peggy Noonan has surely changed her tune in the last 6 months. She was a hard core supporter of BHO.

Could the media finally be turning? Even "Tingle Leg" is getting into the bashing. Or, are they afraid of looking stupid to the world if they continually cover for incompetince?

[foxyladi]

maybe the Democrats will recall him..:rotfl:

[foxyladi]

like the bad TOYOTA'S:D

[sojourner]

With polls showing that a majority of Americans say that they believe President Obama is doing a poor or very poor job handling the oil crisis in the Gulf of Mexico, the president on Thursday will meet reporters to discuss energy issues as part of a three-day campaign to defuse the touchy political issue.


A USA Today/Gallup poll published Thursday shows that 53% of those surveyed give Obama poor marks in handling the crisis while 43% give him a positive grade.


Though critical of Obama, voters were even harsher about the federal government and BP, the owner of the well. According to the poll, 60% said the federal response was poor and 73% blamed BP.


The findings are based on telephone interviews conducted May 24, and May 25, before the current “top kill” effort to staunch the flow of oil into the gulf. A random sample of 1,049 adults were surveyed, and the results have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.


The current crisis has been especially nettlesome to Obama, whose approval rating has generally been below 50% this year, the sophomore period of his first term. Source (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/05/poll-majority-of-americans-fault-obamas-handling-of-oil-spill.html)

[Spang]

Poll: Majority of Americans fault Obama's handling of Gulf oil spill

The majority of Americans are stupid. There is no government agency designed to un-**** this kind of catastrophe.

[sojourner]

From the Noonan article:
This is what happened with Katrina, and Katrina did at least two big things politically. The first was draw together everything people didn't like about the Bush administration, everything it didn't like about two wars and high spending and illegal immigration, and brought those strands into a heavy knot that just sat there, soggily, and came to symbolize Bushism. The second was illustrate that even though the federal government in our time has continually taken on new missions and responsibilities, the more it took on, the less it seemed capable of performing even its most essential jobs. Conservatives got this point—they know it without being told—but liberals and progressives did not. They thought Katrina was the result only of George W. Bush's incompetence and conservatives' failure to "believe in government." But Mr. Obama was supposed to be competent.
It is a given that conservatives believe that the federal government is taking on too many jobs and not doing them very well. But I believe that liberals and progressives know that in the case of a disaster the federal government isn't good for much except writing checks.

They were disingenuous in blaming Bush for Katrina and in the process they convinces the country that the feds should be able to move in and quickly handle a disaster. Now they are facing the consequences.

[Spang]

Katrina was an example of the type of disaster that the federal government is specifically tasked with handling. And for most of the 90s, it was very good at handling them. But when George Bush became president and Joe Allbaugh became director of FEMA, everything changed. Allbaugh neither knew nor cared about disaster preparedness. For ideological reasons, FEMA was downsized and much of its work outsourced. When Allbaugh left after less than two years on the job, he was replaced by the hapless Michael Brown and the agency was downgraded and broken up yet again. By the time Katrina hit, the upper levels of FEMA were populated largely with political appointees with no disaster preparedness experience and the agency was simply not up to the job of dealing with a huge storm anymore.

The Deepwater Horizon explosion is almost the exact opposite. There is no federal expertise in capping oil blowouts. There is no federal agency tasked specifically with repairing broken well pipes. There is no expectation that the federal government should be able to respond instantly to a disaster like this. There never has been. For better or worse, it's simply not something that's ever been considered the responsibility of the federal government.1

In the case of Katrina, you have the kind of disaster that, contra Levin, can be addressed by the federal government. In the case of the BP spill, we're faced with a technological challenge that can't be. They could hardly be more different.

But there is one way in which they're similar. As Levin says, Katrina would have been an immense disaster no matter what. But it was far worse than it had to be because a conservative administration, one that fundamentally disdained the mechanics of government for ideological reasons, decided that FEMA wasn't very important. Likewise, the BP blowout was made more likely because that same administration decided that government regulation of private industry wasn't very important and turned the relevant agency into a joke. If you believe that government is the problem, not the solution, and if you actually run the country that way for eight years, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. But we shouldn't pretend it's inevitable.

The Source (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2010/05/why-bp-anti-katrina)

[Suzan]

Peggy Noonan has surely changed her tune in the last 6 months. She was a hard core supporter of BHO.

Could the media finally be turning? Even "Tingle Leg" is getting into the bashing. Or, are they afraid of looking stupid to the world if they continually cover for incompetince?

When was Peggy Noonan ever a hardcore supporter of Obama?

[sojourner]

When was Peggy Noonan ever a hardcore supporter of Obama? You don't remember? There was a major conservative revolt against her.

[samurai007]

Why Were BP Executives Hired For MMS? Fox, Meet Henhouse.
By Susie Madrak Tuesday May 25, 2010 11:00am

When Obama appointed Salazar to the Interior job, I hoped against hope that the corporate dirtbag wouldn't be as bad as I thought he'd be. But as always, the "business as usual" Beltway revolving door wins again. Heckuva job, Ken!

In the weeks since BP's Deepwater Horizon well started spewing into the Gulf of Mexico, there's been increasing attention to the "cozy" relationship between the Minerals Management Service (MMS) and the oil industry it's supposed to regulate. How cozy? Just last summer the Obama administration tapped a BP executive to serve as a deputy administrator for land and minerals management.

Interior Secretary Ken Salazar last June appointed Sylvia V. Baca to the post, which did not require Senate confirmation. The appointment follows eight years at BP. From her MMS bio:

Baca had been general manager for Social Investment Programs and Strategic Partnerships at BP America Inc. in Houston, and had held several senior management positions with the company since 2001, focusing on environmental initiatives, overseeing cooperative projects with private and public organizations, developing health, safety, and emergency response programs and working on climate change, biodiversity and sustainability objectives.

As Director of Global Health, Safety, Environment & Emergency Response for BP Shipping Ltd. in London, Baca led a worldwide team to develop innovative and proactive energy and the environment initiatives. Among her accomplishments, she oversaw health, safety and environmental outcomes for an $8 billion ship building program, resulting in the youngest, greenest and most technically advanced fleet in the world. The project has received numerous awards for its safety and environmental advancements.

Baca is also an excellent example of the revolving door between government and industry that MMS has been accused of facilitating. From 1995 to 2001, she was an assistant secretary for land and minerals management at the Department of Interior before leaving to work for the oil giant.

So now that we know BP's "safety" record on drilling was actually a matter of cheating on tests or sidestepping them completely, I have to wonder how, exactly, Ms. Baca earned her safety awards.

http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/why-were-bp-executives-hired-mms-fox

[cinnamongirl]

You don't remember? There was a major conservative revolt against her.

When isn't there a conservative revolt going on against someone deemed too soft or who socializes with Democrats or whatever? It seems to be a perpetual state of apoplexy; the only thing that changes is the faces. It's hard to keep track.

[Suzan]

I was questioning "hardcore." I doubt she would have had to go that far to trigger a major conservative revolt. They're pretty common these days.

[sojourner]

When isn't there a conservative revolt going on against someone deemed too soft or who socializes with Democrats or whatever? It seems to be a perpetual state of apoplexy; the only thing that changes is the faces. It's hard to keep track.

Except Petty was a speech writing for Reagan and a darling of the conservative movement. It was a little surprising that she would support Obama.

[Aria]

I never saw her as a hardcore Obama supporter but in this case she sounds like she's just awakening to some hard truths - B-b-b-but he was supposed to be competent! Whatever gave her that idea in the first place? There was little to nothing to base that on. Though I'm not a Peggy Noonan fan, I would have expected a more critical eye from her considering her own background.

[foxyladi]

after the campaigning the excusing begins:D

[LucyTN]

I'm trying to figure out who thought he was supposed to be competent. :rolleyes:

[clintonobserver]

I'm trying to figure out who thought he was supposed to be competent. :rolleyes:


Excellent point. "Supposed to be competent" and actually having a record of competence like Hillary, for instance are two very different things.

The fact that Mr. Obama had no experience is shining through right about now!

[RichardMZhlubb]

Excellent point. "Supposed to be competent" and actually having a record of competence like Hillary, for instance are two very different things.

The fact that Mr. Obama had no experience is shining through right about now!

Hillary spent a grand total of 4 more years in the Senate than Obama did, during which she was making big mistakes like authorizing Bush to go to war with Iraq. That's not a "record of competence."

[Aria]

Hillary spent a grand total of 4 more years in the Senate than Obama did, during which she was making big mistakes like authorizing Bush to go to war with Iraq. That's not a "record of competence."

Perhaps you could list her other big mistakes?

[RichardMZhlubb]

Perhaps you could list her other big mistakes?

Well, I consider her vote for the Patriot Act another big mistake. And, I don't see any big accomplishments to offset those huge mistakes. She was a good, not great, legislator who started running for president while still in her first term in the Senate, much like Obama. There simply isn't that much of a difference in their legislative experience and record.

[Laura Cereta]

I'm trying to figure out who thought he was supposed to be competent. :rolleyes:

LOL! I laugh to myself every time I see this thread title. Was he "supposed to be competent"? Really? Let's give a little consideration to the source next time, Peggy. Damn.

Hillary spent a grand total of 4 more years in the Senate than Obama did, during which she was making big mistakes like authorizing Bush to go to war with Iraq. That's not a "record of competence."

Richard, I like you and I'm finally over any desire to rehash the primaries in a forum environment, so I'm just going to let this one go.

[WASTRIC]

Well, I consider her vote for the Patriot Act another big mistake. And, I don't see any big accomplishments to offset those huge mistakes. She was a good, not great, legislator who started running for president while still in her first term in the Senate, much like Obama. There simply isn't that much of a difference in their legislative experience and record.

WOW I actually agree with Richard. Mark your calendars. I had a problem with the way she went shopping for a senate seat at the end of Bill's 2nd term. They basicly would have moved anywhere that a strongly Dem leaning senate seat was opening up. It was just a stepping stone for her run at the White House. Given that, I do think she was a competent senator.

[foxyladi]

I'm trying to figure out who thought he was supposed to be competent. :rolleyes:

WASN'T ME!!!!:eek::surprise::surprise:[-X

[foxyladi]

maybe the Democrats will recall him..:rotfl:

don't we have a LEMON LAW:laughing::laughing:

[Aria]

don't we have a LEMON LAW:laughing::laughing:

My Chuckle of the Day, Foxy. Funneee! :D

[Aria]

Well, I consider her vote for the Patriot Act another big mistake. And, I don't see any big accomplishments to offset those huge mistakes. She was a good, not great, legislator who started running for president while still in her first term in the Senate, much like Obama. There simply isn't that much of a difference in their legislative experience and record.

And of course, she had no other meaningful experience as the wife of the President of the United States for eight years and before that, Governor of the state of Arkansas. Hillary did not stay home and bake cookies as we all know. She worked on women's rights (human rights), education, met world leaders and made important speeches here and abroad, all of which have been an asset in her role as SOS. But I really shouldn't have asked the question because I, like Laura, don't intend to get into a re-hash of the primaries. There was no comparison then, and no point now.

[LucyTN]

He was supposed to be competent, I was supposed to be a 5'9" blonde. We both missed the boat.:D

[cindyb]

Hillary spent a grand total of 4 more years in the Senate than Obama did, during which she was making big mistakes like authorizing Bush to go to war with Iraq. That's not a "record of competence."

I seem to remember most all Democrats in Congress votes as Hillary did.