The White House and Tim Geithner aren’t smelling like roses in the AIG mess. So how are the Democratic leaders in Congress holding up? We see these companion headlines over at Politico: “Don’t blame me on AIG, Pelosi says” and “Reid Avoids AIG Blame Game.” You might think from the latter that Harry Reid is being a stand-up guy and not shifting blame to others. Well, he’s actually just plain avoiding the whole thing:
In a Thursday afternoon news conference, Reid said he wasn’t going to answer any questions about why a provision was included in the stimulus package allowing for AIG bonuses. He referred questions about the matter to Banking Committee Chairman Chris Dodd.
“We need to finish this AIG thing, but the Republicans won’t let us, and that’s too bad,” Reid said.
Republicans are pounding Reid today for what they say is his silence on the affair.
“Sen. Reid appointed himself to the conference committee that changed this bill behind closed doors and ensured that AIG executives could receive their bonuses. However, unlike his colleague Sen. Dodd, who admitted his involvement yesterday, Sen. Reid has stayed silent about his role in this process,” said National Republican Senatorial Committee spokeswoman Amber Wilkerson.
Reid today was clear on where he stood: Let’s move on already.
“I not only don’t want to talk about it, I’m not going to,” he snapped at one reporter.
This is an illustration of why real bipartisanship pays off. Yes, sometimes you get “better ideas” when everyone is working together. But the real reason, the political reason for it, is that if you shut out the other side, ram things home in secret, don’t put legislation up on the internet for a reasonable amount of time, and admit none of your members have read it, then it gets dicey when, lo and behold, there turns out to be a bunch of embarrassing junk in there.
But on a more straightforward note, Reid owes his constituents and the rest of the country some answers about what he knew and agreed to with regard to the bonuses. Chris Dodd has walked the plank, Treasury Secretary Geithner is struggling to relate his tale, and the president is going to have to get his story squared away before the next press conference. It doesn’t quite seem right that the Majority Leader gets a pass. And he may have a perfectly good explanation for his role in all this – which I’m sure he’ll share with us. If the media can corner him.
If Paglia admits Obama is making mistakes, then Paglia admits she made mistakes. Its all about me!
The elitists cling to their views, theories, and opinions, while demonizing the other.
Jennifer: I agree that it’s Number One, as much as his henchmen, who should be blamed. “It’s the economy, Obama!”
But you have not properly conveyed the sheer delightfulness of Paglia’s piece. She’s a strong Number One supporter, but totally independent in her thinking. Particularly compelling is her assessment of the attack on Limbaugh:
[She laaments] “the orchestrated attack on radio host Rush Limbaugh, which has made the White House look like an oafish bunch of drunken frat boys. I returned from carnival in Brazil (more on that shortly) to find the Limbaugh affair in full flower. Has the administration gone mad? This entire fracas was set off by the president himself, who lowered his office by targeting a private citizen by name. Limbaugh had every right to counterattack, which he did with gusto. Why have so many Democrats abandoned the hallowed principle of free speech? Limbaugh, like our own liberal culture hero Lenny Bruce, is a professional commentator who can be as rude and crude as he wants.”
Further: “If Rush’s presence looms too large for the political landscape, it’s because of the total vacuity of the Republican leadership, which seems to be in a dithering funk. Rush isn’t responsible for the feebleness of Republican voices or the thinness of Republican ideas. Only ignoramuses believe that Rush speaks for the Republican Party. On the contrary, Rush as a proponent of heartland conservatism has waged open warfare with the Washington party establishment for years.”
And most delightfully: “I’m sick of people impugning Rush’s wealth and lifestyle, which is no different from that of another virtuoso broadcaster who hit it big — Oprah Winfrey. Rush Limbaugh is an embodiment of the American dream: He slowly rose from obscurity to fame on the basis of his own talent and grit. Every penny Rush has earned was the result of his rapport with a vast audience who felt shut out and silenced by the liberal monopoly of major media. As a Democrat and Obama supporter, I certainly do not agree with everything Rush says or does. I was deeply upset, for example, by the sneering tone both Rush and Sean Hannity took on Inauguration Day, when partisan politics should have been set aside for a unifying celebration of American government and history. Nevertheless, I respect Rush for his independence of thought and his always provocative news analysis. He doesn’t run with the elite — he goes his own way.”
Oh my: Rush being compared favorably with Number One’s fairy godmother. What next: the coolness of Number One being compared to the coolness of Laurence Harvey in his most compelling role?
When he became president he lost one of his key weapons in deflecting attention away from his own failings. It usually sounded like this: “Now, they’re going to tell you that I have a funny name…”
“colossal mismanagement.” because the UK telegraph writes an article that has unsourced claims about some British people feeling huffy about imagined slights, it’s colossal mismanagement. then Camille Pagalia makes some wholly subjective assertions, and so the President should commit hara-kiri from the shame. Really, you are one of the most unserious political commenters out there, in a sea of chattering numbskulls. It’s quite an achievement.
“Slick duo of shrill geeks” is being polite. How can the markets have respect for Doogie Geithner and Bad Rug Orszag with PBO himself calling them “his propeller heads?”
franglo#4- ok, in the spirit of serious political commentating – which statements of Paglia did you find subjective and why is not objective? Give us some hard facts and data that you are referring to.
I believe the proper term is seppuku. But I’d be satisfied if he just hired a competent prime minister while he stayed in the palace and did pen and ink drawings like a good figurehead.
One wonders if it will ever get through to the typical voter (of either party) that the resume does count. While there are examples of exceptional individuals who have come from nowhere to excel in leadership roles, Joan of Arc is a rare bird indeed, and one can ordinarily do a very good job of predicting what people will do on the basis of what they have done. This is the guiding principle of virtually every job search in every successful organization in the whole wide world.
Obama’s resume consisted of reading a teleprompter with at least the skill of the average talking head on the 5 o’clock news and writing two autobiographies describing a life with much hoopla and no significant accomplishments. His performance to date is fully consistent with that resume. Why is any sane person surprised? The mind boggles!
I think Paglia doesn’t want to quite give up on BO, but I think she knows who’s to blame (hint: President Teleprompter). She’s just hoping he’ll change and improve with the eventual help of some competent people (good luck with that in Washington). He won’t improve, though – BO is who he is regardless of staff and the pressures of the office won’t let up.
This country elected a man who had no executive experience. Part of being an executive is finding good people who can help implement and form your policies with some degree of competence. BO is failing miserably at this because this whole executive gig is new to him.
BO is driven by ideology and has never had an interest in actually running anything. This country is in trouble with him at the helm.
Paglia offers a useful guide to would-be Obama critics protective of their liberal bona fides: feign respect for Obama, crucify his advisors.
I meant watercolors. Also, I think I confused Nero with Caligula a few threads back.
It is about time that newly minted president is all show.
Camille looks at things a little differently than everyone else. She sees things in BHO that are peripheral to politics and governance. Physical attraction and presence, poise, mellifluous diction, these are the attributes that count for her. She’s repelled by the lurking Emanuel and the dumpy Axelrod, men that, in the television age, could only achieve political supremacy by creating and directing the team of the charismatic Obama. So Camille is a liberal in the most liberal sense, her opinions generated by emotion rather than logic. Nevertheless, her ideas are her own, she follows no one, and she produces original thoughts. Too bad there aren’t more academicians like her.
…no meat. Somebody needs to tell the president that his new gigg is way over his head.
Don Rumsfeld was ridiculously qualified to run the Pentagon. Alexander, Hannibal, Scipio and Napoleon were very inexperienced. During the campaign the Buchanan/Lincoln experience disparity was constantly brought up.
Setting that aside there is no question that as a general matter, resume and ideological orientation does matter. This is Obama’s ideology, his methodology and his incompetance. George Casey wasn’t responsible for Iraq, George Bush was. Same here.
Jennifer, as usual, I completely agree..but let’s not lose sight of the fact that Camile is putting her life at risk and setting herself up as a target of the White House by looking askance at THE ONE.
Camilla is like Jim Cramer and Warren Buffet, they all say the wheels are coming off the bus, but don’t think the problem is Obama himself. They still vow fealty to him despite the train wreck of bad nominations, failure to address the banking crisis and the profligate spending, all of which should be laid directly at Obama’s feet.
They can’t say they made a bad choice in whom to support for President.
The big media should take to task that the president elected was not properly vetted. I think Hillary must be feeling frustrated by now that DNC has destroyed their own credibility.
RNC does not need to do anything but take care of their base and let the POTUS implode by itself.
free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons
They must be kidding. He would fall to the floor like a used “sex doll” making a hissing sound as he deflated.
Mr. Maobama does not think he was elected President, he thinks he was elected King of America. The stock market’s decline? Beneath his august contemplation. Legislation crammed to the gills with earmarks? Beneath his august contemplation. The absence of coherent plans to stabilize American banks? Beneath . . . I think you get it now. His self-perceived role is to float like a leaf on the wind far above the tawdriness of actual governance, dwelling instead in the pure and wonky land of policy ideas. We need a leader who patiently and calmly can explain what his administration is doing to help the badly sagging economy. But we’re not getting fireside chats, just more economic fire.
In Mass we have what appears to be a preview of BO presidency, Deval Patrick. Both seem captured by thir respective legislative leaders. Deval is now very unpopular unable to reform the state government and requesting ever higher taxes. One hopes BO can break free but experience shows otherwise.
Paglia is critical of the “administration”, but isn’t willing to take the career risk of laying the full blame at the feet of Obama. But didn’t we hear for 8 years that the failings of the Bush administration was directly George Bush’s fault? Yet Paglia and others aren’t willing to go all the way with their criticism because, as #17 said, they can’t quite admit that Obama isn’t up to the job. Yet at the same time, they blame the financial crisis on the CEO’s, the guy at the top, because ultimately he should be held responsible for the success or failure of his organization.
So which is it? It the failures of the administration Obama’s fault, or is the failures of financial industry the people who work for the CEO? A little consistency from Democrats would be appreciated.
The fact is, the person responsible for an organization has to be held responsible for the actions, successes and failures of his or her organization. Whether that’s a small department in a company, the entire company, or the presidency, this same rule applies. Therefore, the failings of the Obama administration are completely Obama’s failures. He, and he alone, has the authority to reign in his staff, or turn them loose. He, and he alone, as the authority to dictate what policies his administration will pursue and the priorities of his administration.
The sad fact is – and critics like Paglia, Cramer and Buffet will have to recognize this sooner or later – Obama is in over his head. He didn’t have the qualification or experience to run an organization as diverse and complex as the White House. He has zero executive experience, and his management experience has been limited to his staff as a state and US Senator. As the ever wise political veteran Joseph Biden said, the presidency is no place for on the job training.
#22, Richard,
You can add Andy Grove to your list of critics.
Cavalier,
I have no idea where you learned history, but Alexander, Hannibal and Scipio were trained from birth for military leadership in families with very strong military and executive traditions. Alexander, you may recall, had a father who conquered Greece, and was educated by an itinerant savant, named Aristotle, of whom you may have heard. Napooleon came from more modest stock, but trained and succeeded in the French military before seizing power in a military coup and achieving fame by using the military to conquer most of Europe. Sounds a bit like he stuck with his resume, huh?
In fact, every one of them performed just about as his resume suggested he would.
@materialist
AS THE RESUME SUGGESTED THEY WOULD?!?!?!?.
I am well aware of their training and family background. It was not different from that of their peers whose names most of us would find it more difficult to remember (to be sure Alexander and Hannibal were in a somewhat advantageous position – though Hannibal’s brothers obviously were unable to perform at his level, but Scipio’s training and social standing was not different from that of any number of high Roman patricians). No “transcript” or “resume” predicts that kind of performance.
In the same way, not every Harvard Law Review and HLS MCL graduate becomes a Scalia or a Roberts (indeed, query if even a Roberts is a Scalia, although there is some reason to believe he’s awful close).
DarknessAtNoon,
Well said. Laurence Harvey played the title role in the original film “The Manchurian Candidate”. Are you saying that Obama is the Manchurian candidate? Read recent article on the same subject in Market Watch.
#26: Precisely. By the way, the Stalinist dictator in Darkness at Noon is referred to only as Number One.
Good staff work is a good sign of a good executive. An executive is served poorly if staff is inadequate. The Obama administratio seems to staffed by campaign types who do not know anything about real diplomacy. Protocol is a major part of diplomacy.
Now what I would like to know was who was the protocol officer who shouls have set this up? Was his suggestion shut down by WH staff who schedule Obama’s time?
Handling this visit was a no brainer, which is why the WH failure is so stark. Do we have kids in the WH is seems to be so. Not only is Obama inexpereinced, so is his close staff.
Idealogues can be competent, so where are they in the Obama administration? I know that lots of ex Clinton people were staffed, so they have expereinced. Are they in the right places?
May be the problem is the left idea that manners do not matter and never learned them.