10 Responses to “If You Needed Further Proof . . .”

1. RB says:

   February 21, 2009 at 9:19 am

   “That doesn’t seem like a good recipe for success. On the contrary, it seems almost designed to reinforce the absolute power of the president — he is the ultimate arbiter of policy, he decides just how much authority each officer holds, and he can give or take away that authority at his whim.”

   I am vehemently opposed to Obama, and his first month’s worth of policy prescriptions and statements are immensely alarming. However, I think that those of us on the right can plausibly argue that one of W’s biggest failings was in allowing those within CIA, State, and elsewhere to undermine his foreign policy. Had W asserted his position as the “ultimate arbiter,” and had he “take[n] away that authority at his whim” (firing Tenet after 9/11, for example), perhaps others within his administration would not have been as willing to torpedo him. So…I don’t think it’s convincing to argue that the current Obama circumstances can be necessarily interpreted to mean that he’s insecure (though I believe that he is).
2. Seth Halpern says:

   February 21, 2009 at 9:56 am

   All autocrats and dictators “divide and conquer” to maintain their authority. Our First Salesman, however, is an amateur Sun King or Duce at best. Forgive me for suspecting that he cannot keep up with his Richelieu or Bormann, whoever that is or they are. He sits around waiting to be “advised” what to pitch to the electorate. And in default of clear directions he falls back on platitudinous rhetoric. This is some kind of regency in search of a regent.
3. Anthony says:

   February 21, 2009 at 10:12 am

   “However, I think that those of us on the right can plausibly argue that one of W’s biggest failings was in allowing those within CIA, State, and elsewhere to undermine his foreign policy…So…I don’t think it’s convincing to argue that the current Obama circumstances can be necessarily interpreted to mean that he’s insecure.”

   Don’t see why not. The Bushes–both of them–had an aristocratic belief in responsibility, and so expected bureaurocrats to behave responsibly. Obama has no experience and nothing to be confident about.

   Consider the way Congress seized the stimulus bill and left Obama spinning around in his own campaign rhetoric.

   Now consider the executive branch.

   Obama must have been advised about failing to rein in the agencies. It is an inherent problem with over-sized governments. It has turned leaders throughout history into servants of the State, and made the State unaccountable, whatever the form of government.

   Jimmy Carter was insecure for just that reason.

   And the joke is on Obama, because the bigger he makes it, the more ungovernable it will be.
4. DocC says:

   February 21, 2009 at 10:24 am

   No the joke is on us. Come to think of it, it is not very funny, either.
5. Neo says:

   February 21, 2009 at 10:44 am

   Energy Secretary Chu’s comments about “not speaking for the administration” seem to indicate that the appointed Cabinet members don’t know what duties are theirs and which have been usurped by Rahm Emanuel.
6. MartyH says:

   February 21, 2009 at 11:03 am

   If Obama wanted a “team of rivals” in his cabinet he should have nominated Palin to be his Secretary of Energy. She’s arguably the most qualified person for the job and is truly a rival.
7. Neo says:

   February 21, 2009 at 11:26 am

   I got the quote wrong .. “I’m not the administration quite frankly” .. The guy doesn’t have a “Chu”
8. cavalier says:

   February 21, 2009 at 11:29 am

   @Seth Halpern

   Umm…might be giving The One a little too much credit. Much recent scholarship has concluded that Louis XIII influenced the direction of policy much more than had been thought to be the case for the 350 or so years subsquent to his reign. Also, while Hitler may not have corralled all the various power centers (Borman, Goering, Himmler) he did seem to be in charge quite a bit more than Barry has heretofore.

   Your concluding take on Obama, however, does seem to be spot on.
9. Cas Balicki says:

   February 21, 2009 at 11:29 am

   “A team of rivals” is this morning’s oxymoron. Just when do these high priced horses start pulling the wagon and in what direction?
10. Pete Madsen says:

    February 21, 2009 at 1:00 pm

    Although it doesn’t change the thrust of the post, I’ll mention that the President didn’t initially nominate Judd Gregg to be Secretary of Commerce; he initially nominated Bill Richardson of New Mexico. Gregg was his second try.
11. Max says:

    February 21, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    This is Illinois politics (with a side order of Alinsky) taken national.
12. John Rich says:

    February 21, 2009 at 3:55 pm

    Obama has never led anything. He’s never governed. He was like an absentee father in both the Illinois and U.S. Senates (voting “present” and with zero legislative accomplishments).

    He seems to be a smooth talker but without some magical words in front of him via teleprompter, he is all “uhh” and other non-verbal stumbles and pauses.

    Will be grow in office? I doubt it. He is a small man, an Illinois Democrat machine man, a luckier and more successul version of Roland Burris. And he’ll have too many competing power centers that will only proliferate out of his immediate control.
13. Nolanimrod says:

    February 21, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    Empty? A guy who was endlessly described as “eloquent” wouldn’t have passed my ninth-grade speech class. “Uh, uh, uh, and, and, and, if, if, if, uh, uh, uh,.” End quote.

    I bring this up because of the constant barrage of the E bomb: ELOQUENT. He ain’t. Actually, when I look at the first part of this comment I can’t remember what I was trying to get at, but it’s been fun, so why not?
14. AJL says:

    February 21, 2009 at 10:47 pm

    In my opinion, Hillary took the job purely for personal enrichment through Bill’s foundation. She is through with politics and simply wants to get rich(er). As before, Bill is her ticket.
15. Stuart Rose says:

    February 21, 2009 at 11:02 pm

    I’m still surprised that Hillary accepted the position. Given how diffuse foreign policy making power has suddenly become with Obama’s annointing of policy czars for this and that region, Hillary can’t play a decisive role in our biggest foreign issues while she will, by virtue of her title, share royally in the blame if they end badly.
    Was this all about her realization that running for president again was unrealistic, short of a profoundly miserable performance by Obama, an eventuallity that would doom a run by any Democrat?
16. Francisco says:

    February 22, 2009 at 12:02 am

    Dick Morris said this in an article a few weeks ago, and I thought maybe. I thought Hillary would exert more influence and not allow herself to be tossed aside. However, I’m not so sure now. Considering there’s an envoy for every major country, it has taken away a lot of her influence. Also, I heard this morning that John Kerry was in Syria. I was personally shocked to hear this since I hadn’t heard that he was appointed to anything. I hope when a foreign policy challenge, does come up, (which it will soon, take your pic) that Hillary will be involved.
17. Alan K says:

    February 22, 2009 at 2:02 am

    Hilda Solis’ nomination to Labor Secretary has been held up supposedly because of tax problems of her husband. But she was a lobbyist for a pro labor organization for several years, a seemingly clear violation of House rules. I can’t understand why this issue seems to get no attention. It seems to me that this is the true reason for the delay in the confirmation vote.