The president has been perhaps unfairly criticized in various quarters for his deliberate response to the latest domestic terror attempt. That said, it seems an odd defense for Democrats feeling wrong-footed by that criticism to defend Hope ‘n Change with, well: That’s the way Bush did it.
It was six days before President George W. Bush, then on vacation, made any public remarks about the so-called “shoe bomber,” Richard Reid, and there were virtually no complaints from the press or any opposition Democrats that his response was sluggish or inadequate.
That stands in sharp contrast to the withering criticism President Barack Obama has received from Republicans and some in the press for his reaction to Friday’s incident on a Northwest Airlines flight heading for Detroit.
Democrats have seized on the disparity and are making it a centerpiece of their efforts to counter GOP attacks on the White House. “This hypocrisy demonstrates Republicans are playing politics with issues of national security and terrorism,” DNC spokesman Hari Sevugan said. “That they would use this incident as an opportunity to fan partisan flames…tells you all you need to know about how far the Republican party has fallen and how out of step with the American people they have become.”
Comparisons are inherently invidious, and for my own part, I think it appropriate that the Chief Executive wait until the facts are in before jumping to any rash conclusions that he may have to walk back later. Nor is it dignified for the leader of the free world to jump to conclusions the podium each time some nutter goes on a binge. But I do think it’s useful to compare and contrast both the personalities in play and the environment they were operating in.
In December of 2001, the hole at Ground Zero had but recently stopped smoking, we were still looking for the source of the anthrax mail-outs that had occurred more or less contemporaneously with the 9/11 attack, we had just concluded a successful military effort to dislodge the Taliban government from power in Kabul and the big event itself was scarcely three months past. Having pushed through ground breaking legislation that restructured civil, military and intelligence roles, and having launched full scale military assault on a land-locked South Asian country, no one was wondering whether Bush lacked decisiveness but some were beginning to doubt his judgment. His political popularity soared to 86% in the autumn of 2001 – an amazing figure, given the razor thin and hotly contested margin of his election just one year past. Eying those poll numbers, some among the disaffected 14% with different priorities were busily laboring away to reverse the trend. Michael Moore got to work and soon made quite a name for himself documenting “My Pet Goat“.
The rest is, as they say, history.
But until this Christmas we had gone almost exactly eight years without coming quite so close to a successful terror attack in this country. And President Obama – so much the “anti-Bush” that he ran against the lame duck president in 2008 – was supposed to be all that Bush was not. Where 43 was rash and acted from his gut, 44 would be cool and deliberate. Yale grad and Harvard MBA Bush was cast by his critics as anti-intellectual, while Obama – a Columbia grad with a Harvard law degree – was to be welcomingly cerebral.
The country was suffering from a severe case of Bush Fatigue in the fall of 2008, and voted in large numbers for the person who was “Not Bush,” despite the fact that the candidate who best personified that role had the thinnest public record of any man ever to occupy the Oval Office. And while being Not Bush got President Obama the keys to the White House, it will not in itself be sufficient to define his legacy as a president nor ensure his re-election. The people are now forming opinions as to who the president is, not who he is not. With that in mind, it’s probably getting close to the time when they no longer want to hear about how many of his the current president’s misfortunes are the fault of his predecessor, nor to have his minions inexplicably pivot around and wave away criticism with “Bush did the same thing.” For the vast majority of us this is too clever by half.
The people are all about deliberation when they feel the hand of government rifling through their pocketbook, which was why the president’s ill-fated push to get a health care bill signed last August cost him so much good will. But they tend to be a little more appreciative of someone who is willing to act decisively in a national security context, even if later on they want to ride the brakes or wake up with a hangover. In that respect, at least, President Obama has a higher hill to climb.
So many of the qualities that President Obama brings to the table – his cool, cerebral style, his tendency towards deliberation, the whole “No drama Obama” thing – can become a liability if instead it becomes seen as aloofness, indecision and a lack of passion, which is what his critics – on both sides of the political spectrum – are responding to. For those on the right to criticize is not “hypocrisy,” pace wounded Democratic Party spokesmen Hari Sevugan. It’s politics, at least as it’s played in the 21st Century.
The times have changed as much as the men that seek to change them. The toxic combination of “it’s Bush’s fault” and “I’m just doing what Bush did” may not last President Obama much longer.
Whether its unfair or not I can’t say and my reaction may be the result of my loathing of his policies but nevertheless when I saw and heard his two statements on TV regarding this incident I just felt like he was just so annoyed about having to deal with this at all. The cool, detached, professorial approach with leagalistic precision of his words made me think I was just hearing a police spokeman describe a domesitic violence incident where two drunk people end up dead after an argument instead of, yet another, brazen attack on innocnet civilians by an enemy that has demonstrated repeatedly its murdering tendencies. I know he’s on vacation but a tie might have helped assuge my belief he just really didn’t like having to say anything about it.
All the passion of an undertaker on his 4th funeral of the day just wanting to get home to dinner. And about as inspriational in terms of making me beleive he really wants to do anything about as someone reading the Lord’s prayer because they don’t know the words.
For a man who demonstrated great eloquence and passion on the campaign trail to be so lifeless in the wake of this tragedy says something. Something I don’t care for. Maybe it got in the way of his tee time.
Genuine emotion? I think Mr. Spock would be proud of this guy.
The issue is not whether both President Bush and President Obama, acting in a similar manner was appropriate and timely regarding their respective foiled terror attacks. No, the issue is, notwithstanding the similarity of actions, why is the public’s reaction so very different in each case?
The answer is twofold: Bush was at the time near the height of his popularity, and a “war president.” Those on the left were either too timid or honorably reluctant to criticize a flawed CiC they may have disliked.
However in the case of Obama, conservatives have felt no compunction to criticize this CiC and war president. Indeed it seems as many on the right eagerly hope he fails, and will go to some extremes to “bring him down.” A sad state of affairs.
US terror incidents since 2000.
Like him or loath him Geore Bush at least gave the sense he cared. Now I’m not saying Obama doesn’t – I just can’t believe he could be so callous – but he just didn’t show any emotion. Maybe its just me but I like some emotion from my leaders as it connects with me on that human level. When he said we were going to do everything we could to get to the bottom of this or words to that effect it didn’t resonate. Of course he hadn’t been helped any by his Press Secretary nor Homeland Security head who proceeded him and failed to communicate the gravity of the situation. Does the bomb actually have to go off to get a rise out of them? It doesn’t really matter because the institutional incompetence the layers on layers of BS have produced in the security apparatus just mean its more likely now not less when one gets through but at least it would be nice to see some genuine emotion.
I don’t want him to fail I just want him to fail to implement his agenda – I don’t share it and think it is a dangerous course to take. Those are two different things and consistent in my way of thinking.
Selective amnesia, there Flit. Where was your concern over this “sad state of affairs” when 51% of Democrats — not just “many”, but a majority — hoped Bush failed?
The difference between the two circumstances is in the context. Bush was busy carrying the fight to those dedicated to killing us, and destroying our way of life — in short, acting like a “war president”. BHO has spent his entire presidency running from those, who like the Knickerbomber, are committed with every fiber of their bodies, to murdering as many of us as they can. If being a “war president” was a crime, he seems determined to leave no evidence.
I disagree, fliter. Oh, yes, the public reaction is the deciding factor in each case, but the question is why GWB got a pass for the same actions that BO is not getting a pass on.
Which, the Republicans have been asking that question for years now.
So maybe the common denominator in both questions is, perhaps, the media that spins the stories and asks the questions and otherwise frames the argument?
Bush had the advantage of being thought an idiot by the media and punditry, something he played for all it was worth. Nice thing about being thought an idiot, you get praise for being competent and if you’re exceptional nobody will admit to it lest they be seen as inadequate judges of character.
Obama has no such advantage. He was anointed as the intellectual. He has to be perfect, every single time, lest that image be blown. He has to be perfect for the media who report and pontificate, he has to be perfect for the masses who elected him, he has to be perfect for the World he’s bringing that New Direction to.
It can’t be done. Somebody is going to get their ox gored out of the groups who elected him.
The man set himself up to fail on the campaign trail, invoking words without meaning and giving platitudes without details. That’s fine when it’s an election, the electorate expects to be lied to then. That’s not so great when people are expecting leadership and action rather than speeches.
– Max
OLDT6. The tie thing doesn’t necessarily bug me–I’ve always said one doesn’t have to be solumn about something to be serious about it, but let’s face it, “Jan-No’s ” “man-caused disaster” verbiage came straight on orders from the White House–and it wasn’t the WH cook that send them either. It’s a whole different attitude. I recently read somewhere from an anonymous insider comment at State that such information as provided by the Nigerian’s father was a red-flag under Bush but the “grapevine” has let it be known that such “reflexive” “anti-Muslim” suspicions are now frowned upon and can be career ending. But then we all knew such “attitude adjustments” were coming anyway, didn’t we? Pathetic.
Part of being a leader – the part that so many get wrong – is showing some emotion when it is appropriate to do so. Obama never shows any – he did all those “shout outs” before talking about the Ft. Hood massacre. That showed a lack of sense of propriety and a clear indication that, in fact, he doesn’t care about anything except his own legacy.
Hence the measured words and tone, even when talking about a terrorist attack on our citizens (and others).
Obama has never lead anything except a walk to an exit door to vote present. It’s no surprise that he hasn’t learned the subtleties that go along with being an effective, well-respected leader.
Quite frankly, I don’t think he has the capacity to do it.
Kris, intellectually, Obama still thinks he’s the chicken part of the breakfast contribution–he hasn’t realized yet that he’s actually one of us pigs….
Lets amend that: “porcine prodigals”
Would you mean ‘porcine prodigals’, apportioned by the slice?
Yup. The chicken contributes; the pig is committed.
The Onion reports that the imPOTUS has a problem
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/white_house_reveals_obama_is?utm_source=videoembed
Yes, it’s the pattern, really. I was appalled by the perfunctory and insincere Ft Hood remarks, made only after pandering to the live audience. It was very, very clear who was the afterthought in his mind, and that was All of Us. (Perhaps intentionally making sure we’d know he resented our ‘issues’ interfering with his fun.) Truly the opposite of leadership.
His media plants’ insistence that his insouciance was intended to downplay the nearly-successful terrorist attack by continuing to vacation is entirely unpersuasive. Could he do anything to play *up* the successful attacks on 9/11 any more than by granting all the rights of US citizens in the US legal system to known and confessed strategists and conspirators? Which, tragically, he has also done with this known and confessed conspirator.
There will be more coming out from the intelligence services of ways they’re being discouraged from zealously protecting American interests and Americans. There will be more coming from foreign sources confirming the conspiratorial network involved here, while the party line from the White House will continue to emphasize post hoc trials for unsuccessful “isolated” terrorists, and vague pontification about human rights and values (without mention that our enemies don’t share respect for either).
There will be successful attacks on US soil in 2010; our enemies are emboldened and the Obama administration is tying both hands behind all of our backs.
I voted against Obama, because I thought he would do exactly these things. I never thought he’d bring us to this point before he’d even been in office a year, though. Dangerous times ahead.
It’s an embedded ideological DNA thing, beachrat, that’s why the observed reflexive response pattern of Obama’s that is always on display. I’m reminded that old joke (only half made in jest) about Mondale when he ran for President concerning his philosophical temperament. “If Cuba invaded Florida, the first move Mondale would make is to begin immediate negotiations with Castro about the neutrality of Georgia,” said one wag. LOL funny, but pathetically not exactly out of the realm of possibility now with this guy in the way I thought it was then…
You know, beachrat, uon further reflection I am reminded of one of my favorite “BC” cartoons abpot the human condition. It has Peter and someone else sitting with their backs to a tree (each on the other side. First Panel: “If love is the opposite of hate, what comes in between?” intones one. Second panel: No thoughts fom either. Third Panel: “A sort of calculated insincerity,” replies the other. I used to LOL as I thought that told one all one needed to know about male-female relationships, but now I see how it works with Obama. Obama neither hates the enemy nor loves this country–at least in it’s present form–it’s all about the “calculated insincerity” bit…
Right on target, virgil — and relevant to the other post here (http://www.neptunuslex.com/2009/12/30/shelby-steele/) linking Shelby Steele’s analysis in the WSJ: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704254604574614540488450188.html?mod=rss_opinion_main
Personally I don’t think it has anything to do with race, but this core statement rings chillingly true:
“I think that Mr. Obama is not just inexperienced; he is also hampered by a distinct inner emptiness—not an emptiness that comes from stupidity or a lack of ability but an emptiness that has been actually nurtured and developed as an adaptation to the political world.”
If you consider his political pedigree, and where he attended “Church,” the emptiness of soul that is quite obvious in the man makes sense.
It’s amusing that even Daley, the head of the political machine that birthed this political monster, is worried about the future of the Dem party. Methinks it’s a bit late for him to worry. To prevent the birth of political mutant that is Obama, would have required the destruction of the very machine that made both his father and himself possible.
I would disagree with Mr. Hart, however. Hate is not the opposite of love. Indifference is.