Wednesday, November 30, 2011

Obama's disdain for his actual job

Michael Godwin builds off of Chris Christie's riff about how President Obama has shown no leadership in facing our looming fiscal disaster. This weekend, in a short, but pointed exclamation about how Obama didn't do anything to try to lead the super committee to find a way to cut our deficit, Christie exactly pinpointed what a lame leader Obama has turned out to be.
“I was angry this weekend, listening to the spin coming out of the administration about the failure of the super committee, and that the president knew it was doomed for failure, so he didn’t get involved,” Christie said. “Well, then, what the hell are we paying you for? ‘It’s doomed for failure so I’m not getting involved?’ Well, what have you been doing, exactly?”
We know that Obama likes campaigning and casting blame. He likes the aura of being president and the perks it involves as well as the opportunities to hang out with people he appreciates such as NBA players. But when it comes to governing, he just isn't all that into it. We saw this in his first year when he outsourced the stimulus and health care bill to Pelosi and Reid. As those policies went south, he simply claimed their success and blamed the Republicans for any lack of success.

Godwin notes Obama's essential arrogance in his approach to being president.
The questions are rhetorical in that we know what the president has been doing and why. He plays golf and campaigns. Governing is beneath him.

He doesn’t talk much to members of Congress or his own Cabinet. They’re beneath him.

His connection to the public consists of speeches before large crowds, and he ducks behind the curtain and into the security bubble as soon as he finishes. The people are beneath him.

Warped by a sense of entitlement and self-aggrandizement, Obama refuses to take responsibility for finding practical solutions to problems. He prefers the glory of transformation rather than the roll-the-sleeves-up work of reform.

When he can’t get his way, he appoints a czar and ignores Congress. Democracy is beneath him.

He could have brokered a deficit deal, but doing so would have demolished his campaign slogan that Republicans are to blame for everything. Any deal would give him ownership of the results, and end the fiction that politics are beneath him.

In fact, he’s all politics, all the time. His idea of bipartisanship is that everybody agrees with him.

He’s so bad at the job that the frequent comparisons to Jimmy Carter are unfair to Carter. The former peanut farmer was a terrible president, but he was at least sincere in his starchy disdain for the country.

Obama professes to really, really like America. He just wants to change everything about it.

And when the country says no thanks, he goes off script and the smears come out. We’re “soft” and “lazy” and “bitter” and “cling” to God and guns.
Such an attitude is no surprise for a man who had written two autobiographies before he'd actually accomplished anything in his life. His mere existence and thoughts about himself were enough to make them best-sellers. Why shouldn't he be arrogant? He campaigned for president without actually having to have a record or real policy proposals and won in a remarkable election. People talked about him as if he were a political messiah before he'd done anything except win election.
The campaign of 2008 looked brilliant because campaigns showcase Obama’s one real talent — blaming someone else for blocking the way to Utopia.

On that basis, he got the job. But now we know the terrible truth: Actually being president is beneath him, too.
He doesn't want to get involved in the actual grit of trying to work out a compromise on the budget because that would remove a campaign issue and that is what he is about - campaigning. But is there any indication that, if he were reelected, he would be able to do anything about such issues that he's been ignoring?

Of course not. All he's concerned about is keeping his job, not actually doing it.