No more Mr. Nice Guy

The poor dears. Turns out, as Politico reframed it yesterday with as little eye-rolling as possible, that Congressional Republicans can't make Dinner with Barack tonight because their feelings are still bruised -- from January, when the president "dominated a GOP meeting in Baltimore and delivered a humiliating rebuke to House Republicans."

You no doubt remember the meeting. The humiliation was televised.

Leaving aside Republicans' monstrous disrespect of protocol and tradition -- when the president of the United States invites you to the White House, you accept, period -- one is left supremely aghast at their extraordinary revisionism.

"He has a ways to go to rebuild the trust," said a conniving, prevaricating, double-dealing House Republican aide to Politico. "The Baltimore thing was unbelievable."

The aide meant that the Baltimore thing was unbelievable then, according to the GOP's wholesale inventions about an Obamian surprise attack; the truth is that the Baltimore thing, as peddled by these Orwellian goons, is unbelievable now.

But if one is in search of spiritual uplift, it seems another contributing reason for House Republicans' dreadful manners is that they quite literally still don't know what they're talking about: "Democrats ... said the [meeting's] delay is self-serving -- [in part] because Boehner and McConnell ... haven’t yet put together clear positions to parry Obama." And that of course harkens January's Baltimore meeting, in which Obama publicly decimated the knuckle-dragging simplicity of attending-Republicans' "arguments."

To me, though, of superior interest were Obama's comments en route home from Asia, before his dinner guests bailed: "[W]hen I sit down with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner this week ... [I'll say] that there are a set of things that need to get done during the lame duck, and that they are not going to want to just obstruct, that they’re going to want to engage constructively."

That was more than just a bow shot. It was a slam to the wall and a knife jutted under their chin: Welcome, boys, to a new age, one in which your epic obstructionism shall be symetrically countered, every bloody step of the way, by my presidential thundering.  

Obama then added: "[W]e’re going to have a whole bunch of time next year for some serious philosophical debates."

And by that he meant, I suspect, a Baltimore redux -- with or without his new playmates.

Comments

[Tennessee Catfish]

Here is an open question to P.M. There has been a lot of turnover in the administration, much higher than normal for this point in a new administration. What is the takeaway from all this? Both for Obama's policies and for his relationship with Congress, Republicans and the voting public?

[P.M.]

A good question, Catfish, my answer to which is rather unoriginal. I tend to agree with Jonathan Alter: No matter who the aides, it's Obama in charge, so staff shifting and sorting makes little essential difference. Obama knows his own mind -- so as we enter a two-year period of campaign vs. governance mode I suspect we'll see more of classic Obama 2008.

[Tennessee Catfish]

Most presidents seem to need about two years to hit their stride. I can only imagine how overwhelming it must be to enter that job. Human nature is to lean on people with previous WH experience and/or long-time trusted aides. Remember that Clinton seemed absolutely inept after two years, but he found his sea legs.

I suspect that Axelrod is a little over his head. Not bad, but not great. Summers sucked all the oxygen out of the roonm for economic policy. Buffet's recent NYT op-ed (plus a host of other reports) signals that Obama is migrating into his camp and that of Volker.

As have you, I have been predicting for the better part of two years, that these next two years would be about the deficit. I also think this is solid ground for Obama and his public persona. he seems to have positioned him self to be seen as the only adult in D.C. as he goes into the 2012 election. But he also needs to have unemployment down to a maximum of 7.5% by then.

[Marc McKenzie]

@Tennessee Catfish: You are correct about many presidents taking 2 to 3 years to hit their stride. Clinton is certainly an example. Hell, it took FDR around 3 years to get his New Deal programs passed. The idea that ANY president can get all of his stuff done in the first 100 days or the first few months is, well, a fallacy.

That said, the accomplishments of the Obama administration in its first two years has been amazing....but no one either 1)seems to notice or 2)knows about it but immediately gripes "But I didn't get the public option and Bush and Cheney aren't locked up and why aren't the jobs coming and...(add various issues here)!"

I do also agree that Obama is pretty much the only adult in DC (well, so is Hillary and Bernie Sanders). It's sad that the adults really are back in charge, but the spoiled brats are still running riot.

"I can only imagine how overwhelming it must be to enter that job."
--Absolutely. That's why, honestly, I could never do it (well, there's the fact that I was not born in the US either!).