Something is wrong at the White House

Something's wrong. There's something wrong at the White House. I don't know if it's the chief of staff, or policy advisers, or political advisers, or new advisers, or the loss of first-term advisers, or the president himself, but something hasn't been right since the fiscal cliff. Something's off, increasingly off, and I've been nervous about it for months.

The White House has, for example, been hanging its hopes on immigration reform; with this Congress--with Senate bombthrowers and House extremists who hate President Obama with a satanic fervor. I've as much chance of being elected to the U.S. Senate myself as this administration has of securing intelligent immigration reform through the current rabble of congressional wingnuts. Yet in the wings the White House labors. Why?

The White House is only setting itself up for more notches of failure. Given the current Congress, every attempt at smart policy and competent governance is a bleeding wound. There are no absolutes in physics or politics, but trusting, in any way, the 113th Congress to advance Obama's second-term agenda is as close to absolutely nuts as it gets. The only hope for a successful term is the next Congress; and the White House's attention, skills, and expertise should be focused on that.  

Instead, we get DOJ outrages and snoop news (the administration welcomes a debate it's been suppressing?) and leak investigations and in general a seemingly clueless aimlessness. I thought it couldn't get worse. I kept my silence (mostly), thinking "up" was about all that remained. Then came news of ... arms to Sunni extremists in a Syrian civil war which is sucking in Iran, Iraq, Hezbollah, Saudi Arabia and Israel and Jordan and Turkey and Russia and al Qaeda and ...

... and I have to agree with Andrew Sullivan:

I hate to say it but this president looks as if he is worse than weak here. He is being dragged around by events and pressures like a rag doll. And this news that we are entering the war with military supplies is provided by Ben Rhodes, not the president. That’s nothing against Ben, but when a president is effectively declaring war, don’t you think he has a duty to tell the American people why and what he intends to achieve?

But nada. You voted twice for Obama? You’re getting the policies of McCain and the Clintons, the candidates he defeated. I wish I could understand this–but....

This is worse than a mistake. It’s a betrayal--delivered casually.

I too hate to say it. But does that delivery come--and this is my worst fear--because Obama has simply lost his grip? He doesn't seem to know why he's there. He won reelection and the plan extended no farther.

He's looking like Robert Redford in the final scene of "The Candidate."

Comments

[Tom]

You've just lost me, Phil. If you "have to agree" with Andrew flippin' Sullivan, maybe the problem ain't with Obama.

Damn.

[Charlieford]

Go back through your back copies of The New Republic or any similar political-opinion type source, and you'll find similar laments about every presidency.

Last summer I went through back issues of the National Review (I do it so you don't have to) and they were complaining that 2d term Reagan had turned into Carter's third term.

Perspective, folks, perspective. It may not repeat, but it sure does rhyme.

[Peter G]

I can't for the world understand why the President would have ordered these DOJ scandals. But then again he didn't.

[Robert Lipscomb]

Once again, I cannot stitch the parts of a post into a coherent whole. This post in 4, 5 or 6 directions at once.

The other night, Lawrence O'Donnell, whose true strength is knowing the legislative process made a compelling argument that several insiders on the far right are telegraphing that the immigration bill is all but a done deal. The senate version will pass with a large majority. The House is then free to pass the "worst" bill imaginable to cover their asses. Then, it all goes to a joint conference where all the rules change. A moderate bill can be brought to the floor of both houses for a simple majority vote.

So, I question your assertion about the immigration bill. We will see.

Two or three weeks ago, before all the kerfluffle, Obama called on the nation to have a full debate on our overall strategy for combating terrorist organizations. He has been somewhat overcome by events, but we are and will continue to have that debate. I suspect there will be a significantly new national consensus.

I am also bothered by Syria and am waiting for more details. His latest two nominations of Rice and the other lady was a clear signal that Obama is choosing to pursue a more interventionist approach to foreign policy. I suspect Bill Clinton's statement was more of an endorsement for Obama's plan to move more towards Hillary's position. right or wrong, it does not strike me that he is being pulled along as much as choosing a new emphasis - again, right or wrong.

[Peter G]

Our host Robert, is as politically astute as anyone I know. I wonder that he cannot see the utility of bringing forth immigration reform forward and continuously in the run up to the 2014 midterms. Win or lose the Democrats win. After first noting that Obama has no re-election risk to consider, his party certainly has a vested interest in keeping the Republicns in the hot seat. If immigration reform passes they, the R people, are unlikely to benefit electorally. They have been too busy trying to load it with toxic provisions to please their extremists for this to escape the notice of minority voters. If it loses the transient damage it might do to the administration is vastly outweighed by the motivational impulse it will give to those minority voters to turn out in a midterm election. Since the only possible way that this administration can expect a productive second term is for a sea change in the midterm elections this is exactly what the administration and their congressional allies should be doing. The failure of the Republcans to deal with long term demographic changes to the electorate will be the primary cause of their inevitable decline. Gerrymandering can only hold this back for so long.

[Robert Lipscomb]

PeterG, I agree with you on all points, including our host's abilities.

Since the inauguration, I have stated my hope that Obama would press his progressive agenda as explained in his state of the union address and his inaugural address.

In addition to the partisan political benefits, there is the broader political benefit of repeating an idea until understood, then accepted as fact. He might well "only" spend four years making the case for an agenda, only to have a newly elected Hillary get most of it passed.

So be it.

[priscianusjr]

There's nothing wrong in the White House. My view: the Democrats, Obama & Reid in particular, have the Republicans just about where they want them and are getting ready to lower the boom (to the extent possible). The Dems have an agenda they were reelected to pursue, and they mean to accomplish something in the next few years. They're getting pretty tired of GOP obstructionism. The Republicans, well aware of this, are throwing everything they can at Obama in the desperate hope something will stick. But it's all a lot of crap.