Obama: Too much style, too little substance?
April 8, 2009 - 8:43am.
By DOUG THOMPSON

It's still too early to make a final judgment but the administration of America's first black President may go down in history as a triumph of style over substance.

Barack Obama's charisma charms the hell out of most of the American public, the mainstream media and even hardened political pundits. He's a powerful speaker, an articulate politician and an adept manipulator who has built an image that has mesmerized a nation and most of the world.

But style alone cannot deal effectively with the many problems that face this nation. Articulate rhetoric is not enough to lead America. When you get past Obama the image and take a close, hard look at Obama the President, you come away wondering if America simply replaced a right-wing problem with one from the left.

In too many ways, Barack Oama is a left-wing George W. Bush.

Bush came into office promising to unite the country. So did Obama. Bush governed as a strident partisan. Obama's promises of bipartisanship have disappeared and his actual job performance is now as partisan on the left as Bush's was on the right.

Bush promised "the most ethical administration in history." He delivered one of the most corrupt. Obama promised an administration free of lobbyists and typical Washington politicians schooled in the old way of doing things. His administration is filled with old Washington hacks and -- yep -- even lobbyists.

Obama promised to rid this nation of the Constitutional abuses of the Bush administration but he has continued the legally-questionable rendition policies of his predecessor. Such policies violate international law and American constitutional experts like Jonathan Turley say the Obama administration continues to wade through "murky legal waters" when it comes to abuses of the Constitution.

Obama promised an "open administration" but reporters and watchdog groups are finding the new boss is the same as the old boss when it comes to access to documents that detail the inner workings of our government.

Some who defend Obama's retrenchments say things like "well, no candidate keeps their campaign promises" and "you can't expect the rhetoric of the campaign to translate into real policy when it comes to governing."

With most candidates, perhaps, but Barack Obama promised to be different from most candidates. He promised to fundamentally change the way Washington worked. Instead of being the new kid on the block with new ideas and new ways of doing things, he has become another good old boy in the Washington political system.

Centrist Democrats and moderate Republicans who intially thought Obama would govern from the center find, to their dismay, that he took a sharp left turn after taking the oath of office and now promotes a hard-core, leftist agenda.

The first cracks may be appearing in Obama's style-over-substance approach to government. A New York Times-CBS poll shows 58 percent of Americans think the President is mishandling the banking crisis but he continues to have record high marks in other areas.

Americans are a fickle bunch when it comes to support of our leaders. Obama wins now on style but if he doesn't show substance beneath all the hype, hoopla and rhetoric he may well be a one-term President who will go down in history as just another politician who promised a lot and delivered little.

DOUG THOMPSON

First let me admit that I am not an Obama supporter. I had a certain fatal curiosity about him after the election, but his politics before he took office told me what his politics would be after he took office, so his lurch to the left of left does not surprise me.

What HAS surprised me is how not ready for prime time he seems to be. His advisors have let him down multiple times in his young administration and he is in danger of losing whatever moral adantage he could claim. His nominees bother me the most, not because they aren't qualified but because their tax troubles should have been discovered before the nomination process. His lack of knowelege on official protocol, imagine a US President bowing to a foreign leader, is absurd. He is a guy who likes to look good but I am not sure he is willing to put forth the effort needed to be good. I am rooting for him to succeed for purely selfish reasons, but rooting for him none the less. I expected much better from him than what I have seen to date.

Tim

Get your facts straight, Mr. Thomspon!

source: NY Times/CBS Poll

source: msnbc

source: New York Times

Now, let's have a look at the data on those "centrist Democrats and moderate Republicans who are dismayed to find that the President has taken a sharp turn to the left", shall we?

You know, at this point I don't feel I have access to enough information, or the wisdom it would take to balance it all, to be certain whether Obama is doing a good job or a bad one. But I'd like to add a comment to one paragraph here, as something seems to me to be missing:
As I recall, it was the Republican Party Congresscritters, voting in 100% lockstep against Obama, who closed the door on bipartisanship. They made it very clear that they would not work with him, period - whether he attempted to work across the aisle (as he initially did) or not. Of course I could be wrong; it's happened many times before.

I am curious what this pronouncement is based upon:Frankly, I have seen no indications of this whatsoever.

I did get my facts straight. The same New York Times story you quoted from had this:


Steve, if you're going to accuse me of not having my facts straight, at least read the whole article.

My paragraph said:


That was a correct statement from the story about the poll. Please try to get your facts straight?

--Doug

I've been talking to centrist Democrats and Republicans and they're not happy.

The problem is tax problems?

Were they trying to defraud the IRS? If so they should have been charged by the IRS for such otherwise it was not a problem.

If you think they were then you should have a problem with the IRS for not charging them.

Ahh the Blue Dogs and "The Party of NO".
Welp, maybe the Dogs surprised me and they may be right about Obama's shift to the left (I've seen it too), but as far as bipartisanship?
ROFLMAO...that one gets hung squarely on the shoulders of the GOP, who started out whining, then turned to attempted filibustering, then turned to press attacks, then turned to marching in lockstep, then turned to Rush, their leader AS APPOINTED BY Rahm Emmanuel no less!

Now they're having "Tea Parties" and Michelle Bachmann worship.
What's next from the bipartisan Repubs?

Out of all of them I've only noticed Arlen Specter, who I still have a grudge against for his Warren Commission whitewash, but at least he is actually trying to work with the new administration.

Maybe there are others, I'll look to the really big brains (yourself included of course) to tell me who they are.

But you can't fault Obama's administration entirely for the lack of "bipartisanship".

Right now I think you hit the nail on the head with respect to the economy. Obama isn't just faltering, he's failing miserably.
His closest advisers are the ones who either engineered the crisis or stood by while it loomed on the horizon.

I also see a lot of lip service being paid to alternative energy and the auto business but no real work being done.

Out of all the issues of the day, energy and the economy are the two most likely to sink this nation the fastest.
He'd better get rid of the dead wood and start figuring out a way to lead on these two pieces of business or we're in real trouble.

So it does. I stand corrected. Sorry to pi$$ you off so mightily.

I think that should explain your statement. It is obvious to me that what people consider as centrist are really conservative and thus anyone to their left is considered leftist and thus their considered opinion.

I guess if these folks saw a real leftist in power they would sh&t in their pants and fall dead.

Using all resources available to government to attend to the welfare of our nation is not an option or leftist agenda but is an obligation dictated by the Constitution.

Steve:

It wasn't so much of a case of being pissed off, although the "get your facts straight Mr. Thompson" did bother me because it was not true and the tone was not what I expect on this forum. That aside, this was a difficult column to write because I expected so much from Obama. I voted for him and now I feel like I've been had. As I said in the beginning of the column, it is still early but the indicators bother me a great deal: the continuation of rendition, the flip-flop on lobbyists and the desire for secrecy.

As one who usually writes in a bombastic style, I tried to temper my observations in this case because I still want to hope for the best and I based the comment about the public opinion on the bank bailout on the poll. I cited my source and I noted that the public still backed Obama on the other issues. To have that same article thrown back in my face with a snide remark to get my facts straight when my facts and citation were in order did piss me off. It also hurt.

--Doug

How much did Jesus accomplish in a whole lifetime?...

And did you really expect Obama to get it all done already?Less than three months, and he hasn't fulfilled all of his promises...

An obvious failure!

While I respect the old... I look to the young for they will own the debt, the risk, the danger of a much smaller world.

They are not dumb... not naive... not all dedicated to the preservation of pot, rap, and free sex. Anyone who has not been in the company of our future leaders, may believe this, but in the face of a future that is increasingly looking to be screwed up, the overwhelming feeling is one of hope. Right now, that "hope" is bound up with President Obama.

So, yeah... I don't like Geithner, or Summers, and I wish the lobbyists would go away. I despise the strength of the MIC, the idea that elections last 4 years, and that there isn't a single member of Congress who is "pure". I don't trust the CIA, or even the FBI. I want to nationalize the banks. I want strong CAFE standards. I don't want to give more of my kids money away to vested interests... and I want to tax the no-risk Capitalist billionaires at 95%.

If Obama wants to talk to the Heads of State of non friendly countries, so be it. If he talks to the families and children of our enemies, it's ok with me. If Michelle has bare arms or a colored sweater, or touches the Queen, I don't care. If we don't bomb Iran or North Korea, I'm willing to wait awhile to see if change is possible. If we don't support Israel 100% on whatever they want, or do, I'll be ready to listen to both sides before going to war.

I think we're wrong as hell to be giving away our wealth to fix the economic problems, but also know that I'm not smart enough to know how to fix the problem.

Am I totally in agreement with the president's plans? No. Will I vote for him in four year? I don't know.

I think that the President is a human being, fraught with the same kind of weaknesses that most of us have. I also think that he has done a magnificent job in walking a thin line... and so far not reneged on the basic tenets that he set forth during his campaign. Has he changed? Sure. If he did not adjust in the light of circumstances, I would be suspect of self confidence arrogance.

Now... here's are two questions that I'd like to see answered:

How would, could, should the President handle lobbyists?

How should he handle the "bipartisan" thing?

If you were in his position... How would you have handled the very things that you cited as being less than successful.

Don't come after me for the Jesus reference. It's hyperbole, but for good reason.

By the what?:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

Well, let's see. He is reported to have helped cater a wedding, He threw one heck of a picnic, He jump-started some fellow named Lazuras, He picked up a few buds along the way who didn't seem to really get it, He did some preaching, Oh! And He apparently offered himself up as a sacrifice for the sins of the world and thus made personal redemption available to any individual who so wished to accept it. It is also reported that he then arose from the dead and eventually made his way to cleaner more well-lighted place (tip of hat to Ernest H.)

It is apparently true that it took a "lifetime" for Him to manage it all, but then, He did not have the staff of thousands, the support of the multitudes, really, really big missiles, nor the near unlimited funds of a Caesar -- er President.:-)

But then, unless one viewed candidate Obama as some sort of messiah (and there were and are certainly some who gave every impression of doing so (perhaps no more so than himself);-)), one recognized him for the polished pol he is. He will do his bit of damage to America while continuing to serve the same masters the others served.
Yours,
Issodhos

Well, I guess we know where you stand, Iss!

It's time to pile on!!!

First of all, I didn't call Obama a failure. I said he has failed to live up to some of the promises he made.

How would I handle lobbyists? I'd stick with the promise to keep the out of my administration.

Bi-partisanship? I'd ignore the GOP leadership and work to build coalitions with moderate Republicans. If rebuffed, I'd try again. I wouldn't stop and run everything through the leadership of the Democrats in Congress. Building coalitions in a Congress divided by bi-partisanship won't be easy but it is impossible if you simply stop trying.

All I've ever really expected out of any elected official is that they be someone who keeps their word. Too many don't. Clinton didn't. Neither didn't Bush. I had high hopes for Obama. He promised to be different, to be an agent of change. So far, he has failed to keep his word too many times. That's a bad start.

--Doug

so thats obamas first hundred days..

what did Jesus do?

Total disregard for the laws of inertia.
Short term perspective.

Other than that, pretty interesting prose. Could pass for "Buck" Henry over at CNN.

I hope for the same thing. That the platform presented would be the basis for the goals of the office. I look at this (for the present) as an intent to make changes. In my wildest imagination, I cannot conceive of any way to immediately stop the lobbying in Congress. At best, I would hope for some sincere ethics reform, but then, that is not the prerogative of the President. If we eliminate all who have dealt with lobbyists, there would be no one left. (sheesh... someone take issue with THAT!)

Without going item by item, I am hoping for directional change. I DO believe that this must start with rhetoric (but not "Empty " rhetoric). Explain... clearly... so that the people understand. Perhaps that's where Obama may be different. Even better than Clinton, Obama seems to be able to connect. Talk to the people first. Then listen. Somehow, I believe that he listens , too.

It looks to me as if this two way conversation is beginning to work. Not perfectly, but for an instance the withdrawal of some candidates upon disclosure of tax problems. Yes... Geithner made it through, and I for one didn't like that at all... but it stopped there. The firing of the GM CEO was a result of "listening". Hopefully, "listening" will change to bailout to some form of nationalization... a possibility that was not even considered a few weeks ago.

Medicare reform, reining in the MIC, budget restraint, earmarks, and tax increases for the wealthy were so far below the radar for the past decade that only dreamers would think that change could happen. Perhaps it won't happen, but so far, the possibility is still on the table. 80 days in, and still on the table.

435 Congressmen, 9 Supreme Court Justices, 1 President. Everyone is in place, the same way it has been for decades. We elected the president on the promise of "change". Certainly it would be nice to wave a magic wand, but it's really one man against the crowd. So far, I see President Obama as holding his own, and when I look around, I don't see anyone who would be doing much better. I liked what I heard before the election but don't expect 100%. If there are going to be changes, I'll listen to the why's.

And as to the main question?... I like the style, and don't think it has been too much. As to the substance? Seems to me to be too early to pass judgement.

That's just my opinion.

Oh, I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion. My opinion varies from what Doug has expressed.

Doug begins by reminding us that Obama is charming. I guess I feel that is a pleasant change. And, I suppose the rest of the world is a happy not to have to deal with an American leader whose generally rejected diplomacy in favor of a “my way or the highway” attitude. So IMO the style is a distinct improvement

Oh, I suppose everyone is entitled to an opinion. My opinion varies from what Doug has expressed.

Doug begins by reminding us that Obama is charming. I guess I feel that to be a pleasant change. And, I suppose the rest of the world is a happy not to have to deal with a leader whose generally rejected diplomacy in favor of a “my way or the highway” attitude.

Ummm, both are true. Although it seems beyond argument that Rove/Bush intentionally adopted highly divisive policies based on wedge issues. I do not see anything remotely similar to the Bush approach from Obama.

Is there partisan division that remains. Of course there is. But, as I understand it, the nature of recent politics has resulted an a situation where only the most strident republicans remain. And, realistically, there is not much middle ground to be had between any non-conservative and these people.


Is this comparison really showing any similarity between Bush and Obama? Wouldn’t such a similarity be based upon the resulting corruption of the Obama Administration? Yes, Obama “over promised” on the lobbyist issue. The simple fact is that if you want an administration to get up and running quickly, you need to have people who know something about government. And the fact is that when the Clinton administration left office… the natural home for most such experienced people was into some form of lobbying. So, to some extent, if Obama wanted experienced people, he was likely going to have to get some lobbyists.

“experts like Jonathan Turley say the Obama administration continues to wade through "murky legal waters" when it comes to abuses of the Constitution.”

On the other hand, the attorney general rejected the abuses of DOJ prosecutors against republican senator Ted Stevens. Let us consider whether Bush or any republican would have done the same for charges against a Democratic senator. And further, the fact that the rights of a republican senator were abused gives some clear indication of the depths of abuse to which the Bush sank. And the fact that Holder rejected this policy gives me at least some hope for a change.

So the allegation here is that the Obama team is similar to the most tightly locked up administration in US history? I guess I will have to see more evidence to believe this to be true. But in general I would say that reporters and “watchdog “ groups express just such complaionts about EVERY administration????

A little more detail would be helpful here. IMO, a move to the center after the Bush years would seem like a radical shift to the left.



But what exactly do these people want? Probably many of them want the banks to fail. Many more want the banks nationalized. These are hardly compatible points of view. And even so…. Are we absolutely sure that if we simply let the banks fail, every thing will be just fine? It did not work out that way with Shearson. To tell the truth, if we could let the banks fail… and reliably hang the results permanently on the republican party… I would be in favor of that. Or is Doug hinting that actually he thinks Obama is too Cautious and should nationalize the banks?

But... lets be clear... is Obama's handling of the banking crisis and example of the extreme leftist agenda that Doug proposed?


Yes, actually Americans are very much of a mind that we should have our cake and eat it too….. You know… sort of like all those conservative farmers that detest government subsidies. Americans do not want the stock market to go down, but also do not want to bail out wall street.Americans want less expensive health care... but they do not want their health services restricted in any way. Americans want the world to love us, and for them to do what we say. Americans want a strong Dollar... and enormous fiscal and foreign trade deficits. Americans want low interest rates but high returns on investments. Americans want affordable housing with perpetually increasing housing prices. Should I continue?

Admittedly, a partisan view, but this from an email received from the DCCC, a nice reminder that, in fact, a good bit of what was promised has been produced. And all inside 100 days.


All with virtually no assistance from the GOP. I suppose one can argue that equal pay for all members of the workforce, medical research supported by Nancy Reagan, and health insurance for children is just so much partisan claptrap, but just because the GOP doesn't like it doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. Bi-partisanship is a two-way street, not a one-way alley of homage to McConnell/Boehner and their ilk.


And not a bad tour of key international players by the new President, Secretary of State, and special envoys to the Middle East and Pak/Afghan-istan.

Let's look at this for a moment.

Create or save 3.5M jobs - Hasn't happened yet and shows no sign of happeneing any time soon.

Stem Cells - There never was a ban on Stem Cell Research. There was a ban on using federal funds for it, created with a Presidential order and recinded with a Presidential order.

Healthcare for 11M children - Hasn't happened et either, although he is going to fund this effort as a result of a broken campaign promise.

The Lilly Law is the only legislative action listed, and there is serious concern about its consequences, not because of the equality issue, but the law suits that will result from it.

That email is more style over substance, more looking good instead of being good.

Yeah... you are right. Definite failure! What is taking so long? Should have turned water into wine, too, along the way.

Am reminded that it took nearly 5 years to up-armor the humvees.

Okay, Ma, so at least you admit it looks good, perhaps if it all succeeds you will also admit to it being good? Looking back, President Clinton appeared to have style, he proved though that he had no class. As far as substance, I feel that a few good things came from his presidencey. President Bush, on the other hand, had no style, no substance and no class. He wore some great suits though. I don't feel that anything good came from his presidency at all. Please, anyone, enlighten me if I am wrong in that judgment.
President Obama has begun to make a few changes, for now that's good enough for me. I'll admit that I'm not completely thrilled with some of his staff choices nor am I convinced that his economic strategy will work, he might know it wont work. It could be that first he must prove that bailouts wont work so that nationalization will be an easier pill to swallow. I dunno, do you? Internationally he's making inroads that will make it easier for the United States to work together with other nations as we resolve this global economic crisis, that's change and it's change for the better. I don't completely agree with Doug, but I don't completely disagree either. It's his job to write about apparent dissatisfaction with the new president, it's my fate to have to be patient and hope this all works out.

There are lemming out there who look at mass emails and drink the koolaid, and there are people who consider the potential outcome before making their decision. I don't believe that the Obama plan will work, but I am still rooting for it to prove me wrong. But using a piece of propaganda like an email as proof is like using the Bible to write a thesis on ancient history. Both give you one side of the story but neither is proof of anything.

When I see those 3.5M jobs, or even half of that number, I will give him the credit he is asking for. When I see that health care program established and succeed, I will give him his due. The whole stem cell issue is a distraction and has been since its discovery. The only thing this guy accomplished on his European vacation was to place the US in a subsevient position to to the House of Saud.

Talk to me when he has done something to help America.

The Obameter: Promises Kept, Promises Broken, and Promises in the Works

Point of fact: The SCHIP legislation passed and was signed into law by the President.

Being signed into law and getting funding for that law to be implemented is two completely different things. As an example I point to the border fence.

Just how fast do you think that should happen ... your comment is another right wing talking point. Let's turn it around and ask the question from our perspective, how many jobs would be created by doing nothing but tax cuts and how long would it take to create those jobs?

There was not a total ban so be more accurate and state the whole truth. The EO was so highly restrictive it hindered stem cell research. That restriction has been lifted and research increase.

And how fast should this happen. I simply can not believe people continue with bogus criticisms. The right wing talk show people have always touted some crazy idea that any of the administrations policies should have an immediate effect. The reason I say crazy is the obvious ... nothing takes effect immediately nor does any legislative action change anything immediately. They just passed the primary appropriations for this new policy and you expect immediate results!!!

You're concerned about lawsuits? Never mind the equality issue damn the law don;t pass it ... someone will sue ... so continue the inequality for fear of a lawsuit. Does this criticism really make any sense to you of you are really concerned about equality?

My response was to this email and my point is exactly the same point you are making.

Pile on? Oh, there will be no question if the day comes when I decide to "pile on", itstarted.;-)
Yours in mellow contemplation,
Issodhos

If a person makes any negative comment about Obama, it is considered piling on.

Being in the monority will be fun. So many emotions; so little time.

oh please do, ive bough a special popcorn popper for just that occasion!

yours in barely contained anticipation

Schlack

[quote=loganrbt]Admittedly, a partisan view, but this from an email received from the DCCC, [quote]

"Already this year, Democrats and President Obama have enacted an economic recovery act that will save or create 3.5 million jobs,"

A piece of legislation has been passed. What it is called and what it ends up doing are not necessarilly synonomous. The "save or create" phrase is a weasel phrase that is unprovable and useful only as a political palliative in the event "3.5 million jobs" are not created before the next election.

"..lifted the Bush ban on stem cell research,"

Reinstated federal assistance on fetal stem cell research. Stem cell research was not previously "banned".


"..provided health care for 11 million children,"

False. American smokers are providing health coverage for the additial children.

" ..and signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act that will end pay discrimination against women in the workplace. "

Well, he did sign it. I do not know what the real impact will be because I have not given it much thought, so I will refrain from addressing it.

"We can now add to that, passing a budget that reduces the debt"

With this claim, I can only think that s/he is living in another universe or s/he has gotten into Phil's "stash". It does seem proof of the emailer being an economic ignoramus (which means that the odds are in favor of the "partisan" emailer being either a Democrat or a Republican.:-)

"..and invests in education, health care, and energy"

He and many of his fellow Dems have done what they always do on education -- throw money at it and placate Big Teacher -- throw money at alternative energy.

"– even while cutting taxes for 95 percent of Americans."

They have already raised taxes on the American smoker, so this is simply a lie.

In other words, a return to basic run-of-the-mill Dem stuff reflecting its New Left influenced modern lib majority.
Yours,
Issodhos

It's not negative comments or criticism but baseless or inane criticisms is to what I object. There is plenty of room for well founded criticisms of current policy however much of what I am critical will require a little time to test the waters and see what lies beneath the murkiness of current foreign policy initiatives.

When Pres Obama said he would bring change to Washington apparently most people must consider a bold in your face domestic policy change as rather ordinary ... well I don;t ... it's like hitting these old intractable stanchions in the head with a 2x4 ... I guess some of them thought it was business as usual LOL NOT!!!

This comment is akin to someone telling Edison light bulbs are a fantasy from another universe.

It takes the great vision of those who might stand on the precipice of history to see what mere mortals can not.

To all who are displeased with the President's actions to date:

What should he have done in the same time frame? What could he have done... that would have a reasonable chance of success...

A simple list should be sufficient to make your point.

I like that, itst. I'll wait, along with you, for the answers...the ones that would have made substantial improvement in major issues (economy, war, health care, terrorism, fuel sources, N. Korea, Iran, Israel, poverty, education, drugs, crime, etc.). Then we can forward those answers to Mr. Obama's website. If he takes heed and changes course, in two and a half months we should be in good shape again.

Oh really? I do confess to being a "mere mortal", but could you show me the budget that reduces the debt? Or even explain how a massive increase in spending based on a massive increase in deficits reduces the debt? If the pols in the White House and Congress can do that it would certainly beat turning water into wine.:-)
Yours,
Issodhos

The idea is simple. Prime the pump to get the economy working again with an expectation that it will expand on the rebound which in turn will offer an expanded tax base and at the same time reduce budgets as the economy improves.

So I can now believe you will stand on your head and spit nickles when this happens?

Tax cuts, right???

Tax cuts, right?

Believe what you wish to believe, but I must ask, do you know the difference between "deficit" and "debt"?
Yours,
Issodhos

I know a great number of centralist that are privately "worried" about the bold policies the new administration has enacted and/or pushing, but I haven’t run across anyone that’s "shocked".
Moreover, many feel that President Obama made a righteous effort to appease those right of center through negotiations and crapped out when the votes were tallied.
The centralist I know, and I know several as well, think the President has balls. Lets face it, the check was written a long time ago, Obama's just the first guy to come along with guts enough to sign it. Patience is a virtue.
Livetoride

I've seen enough... I don't trust Mr.Obama.

Doug... I'm convinced:
Style, too little substance.

An "empty suit"? Who's next in line then for the Presidential meat grinder, who is next to lead a nation that wants and needs a leader, but want him to have no powers to lead...