Obama's Gergen

   A diverse group of presidents - Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Clinton - relied on the advice of David Gergen.  While he had something to say on substance from his broad background in academia and journalism, his real value was that he could say "Mr. President, I believe that there is a perspective that you have not considered."  It is a shame for Obama and the country that the inner circle of Biden, Axelrod, Emanuel, Jarrett, and Michelle does not seem to have room for such a voice.

   As great an orator as Obama is, he missed the class on leadership where they talked about the wisdom of seeking advice which conflicts with your own preconceptions. One result has been the tin ear of the staff sycophants with ideas such as gathering e-mails from opponents of Obama's health care policies, distributing lesson plans for students to write how they could help the president, and plans for a National Endowment of the Arts search for projects to praise the president. Dear Leader , indeed!!  Another has been the appointment process which initially was tone deaf relative to tax cheats, and later with such bomb-throwers as Van Jones. On health care, it would have helped greatly if somebody had told him that the public wouldn't buy the Big Lie - that we can insure 45 million people and pay for it by taking "waste and fraud" out of Medicare/Medicaid, his model for the ultimate "single payer" system.  And with the government owning General Motors, Chrysler, AIG, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and a bunch of bank warrants, it would be great if somebody were whispering in his ear who had actually worked in the private sector. The central problem - from Management 401 - is thinking that you are smart enough to understand not just the facts, but also the point of view that drives conflicting opinions.   

   President Obama began his recent speech to the Wall Street leaders about the need for regulatory reform with the notion that the economy has been stabilized, thanks to the leadership of Tim Geithner, Larry Summers, and Christina Romer, and, after a pause to insert something not in the prepared text, "and others".  Someone should have suggested that he slip into his credits the three people who were most responsible for pulling us back from the brink - Hank Paulson, Ben Bernanke, and Sheila Bair - the latter two Republican carry-overs from the Bush administration.  That would have been credible statesmanship rather than the traditional Washington gamesmanship which he so frequently derides.  If the objective is progress, he should have been reminded of the old saw that it is amazing how much a group can get done when it doesn't matter who gets the credit.  Not if he hasn't transitioned from the candidate of the Democrats to the president of all of the people.  

   Going forward, there are big issues on which Obama would benefit from listening to contrary views - nuclear energy if we really want to be green; a Pakistan-centric view of South Asia if we wish to manage the priority threats; a real effort to curb deficits as we emerge from the recession.  If he is not as arrogant as he often appears, he will learn a lesson from the aggressive public push back on health care, and recognize that public opinion, basic economics, or world events will eventually punish him for allowing only Nancy Pelosi and his Leftist political inner circle to shape his policies before he gives his lecture to the masses.  And he will realize that the people know that Joe Wilson was right.

   David Gergen is still available.

-----

This week's You Tube is presented with apologies to Tennessee Ernie Ford.

bill bowen - 9/18/09

Favorites: 
    1. Mitt Romney's "Free and Strong America" PAC web site. 
    2. Tom Campbell's California governor campaign web site.

Comments

[william McCormick]

You rival O'Reilly in the use of words for us to scramble to the dictionary and look up. But, once I decoded the message you are once again on the mark, Bo.

Finally, Obama has delivered a speech that I liked and believed in. Today at the UN he delivered the message that many Presidents past should have: America will no longer carry the load alone. Now for the difficult part: the enforcement or implementation -- whatever you want to call it.

In days past only GB Sr was able to unite the world to throw Saddam out of Kuwait. As quickly as it was done the alliance evaporated and many of the dollars committed by other nations probaly were never received. For Iraq Part II few joined with us.
In Global warming/pollution India and China ignored us. The UN has gone for decades funded chiefly by the US. It was the US money and military that responded to the devastation of the Indonesian sunami. GBW led the funding of AIDS in Africa. The Marshall Plan monies were never repaid. The Socialistic countries of Europe continue to live defense cost free under the shield of American tax payers. So exactly what is the plan for implementation of this world we will ask to pay their share of blood, environmental controls and money to have the priviledge of standing shoulder to shoulder with America in International society?

This plan like those of healthcare, economic stimulus, Afghanistan, help for small business, immigration control, etc is nonexistent. When Chavez moves on his neighbor will the world rush to stop him? When the terrorists blow up a Las Vegas or Atlantic City Gambling Hotel (place of "Amusement and Sin") will the world care? If the Russians were to actually send tanks into Ukraine or Georgia would the world respond with us? Or shirk from their nuclear weapons?

And what is the plan to make sure that Iran and N Korea give up their nukes? Who will join us in that one? Libya? How much influence did we have over our closest ally, Great Britain, in the release of the Libyian terrorist by Scotland?

In the end the reason the US has had to go it alone is because "we will" and "they won't". And their excuse then becomes "oh damn those Yankees they are imperialist powers!" So we pay the bills, we spill the blood and we clean up the planet first. And for the most part we do it alone. So I applaude the idea and the speech of Obama. But now let's see the plan. Let's start with something easy: the UN. Let's get them to pay for it. Then let's go to Korea and replace the American forces who have been standing guard since 1952 with some German and Russian forces. Then, let's pull all our forces out of Europe and replace them with Chinese. Then let's have a joint Isreali/Palistinian summit with Hamas,Iran,Syria,Egypt and Saudi Arabia at the table and the US leaders watching it with the World on CNN. Then we'll see the real politics of the region.
Next, let's replace the US forces in Afghanistan with Indian and Pakistan forces working toward a common goal whatever that might be in Afghanistan. Now let's turn the continent of Africa over to our European allies and have them solve the AIDs problem and the 20 or so genicidal wars going on in the Congo, Sudan, Dufar etc.

I could go on of course but the folly is evident. And what is scary here is that these are just a small sample of the problems the US is funding and doing for the World at a time when we can't balance our budget. So the President is right we cannot do it alone anymore. Actually we never could but we tried--becasue we are Americans not arrogant imperialists but rather caring people who want to do things for the world. This reminds me of the movie "What about Bob?" The plan needs to call for the world to take "baby steps". Let's pull out of a few things and see if they will step up. Let's freeze our contributions to the UN and see if the world will pay the bill. Let's have a timetable for the withdrawal of our troups from Korea and see who steps in.

I applaude the speech but let's see the plan. And for all our sake let's get back to the US economy and focus on reducing the burden on America's employers instead of adding to it. I'm tired of the political campaigning. If Obama can't do this job then step aside and let the Clinton's do it. Or have we done that? Clinton = Gergen?
What say you to that, Bo?