Click on WORD or PDF for full content
Obama fan, Camille Paglia blames it all on his staff.
Free Barack!
Yes, free the president from his flacks, fixers and goons — his posse of smirky smart alecks and provincial rubes, who were shrewd enough to beat the slow, pompous Clintons in the mano-a-mano primaries but who seem like dazed lost lambs in the brave new world of federal legislation and global statesmanship.
Heads should be rolling at the White House for the embarrassing series of flubs that have overshadowed President Obama’s first seven weeks in office and given the scattered, demoralized Republicans a huge boost toward regrouping and resurrection. (Michelle, please use those fabulous toned arms to butt some heads!)
First it was that chaotic pig rut of a stimulus package, which let House Democrats throw a thousand crazy kitchen sinks into what should have been a focused blueprint for economic recovery. Then it was the stunt of unnerving Wall Street by sending out a shrill duo of slick geeks (Timothy Geithner and Peter Orszag) as the administration’s weirdly adolescent spokesmen on economics. Who could ever have confidence in that sorry pair?
And then there was the fiasco of the ham-handed White House reception for British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, which was evidently lacking the most basic elements of ceremony and protocol. Don’t they read the “Iliad” anymore in the Ivy League? Check that out for the all-important ritual of gift giving, which has cemented alliances around the world for 5,000 years. …
Imagine what the Brits are thinking about Obama now; what with the gift snit and then more omniously, the inability of this administration to concentrate on Job 1 which is the economy. London Times has the story of the empty jobs at Treasury.
Alarm is growing that President Obama’s Administration, as it seeks to navigate a course away from the jagged rocks of the worst recession in a generation, lacks hands on deck. Tim Geithner, the Treasury Secretary, is being forced to operate virtually on his own without any of the 17 deputies his department is supposed to have representing him in important negotiations or helping make crucial decisions.
British officials and other diplomatic sources are already privately expressing concern that the crucial G20 summit in London, now less than a month away, could be disrupted by the US failing to prepare properly for the talks. …
In their efforts to be different from Bush, the new administration has started silly season with the idea of “moderate Talibans.” Tunku Varadarajan has the story for Forbes.
In an interview with The New York Times, published on March 8, President Obama appeared to suggest that his administration might be willing to talk to people in Afghanistan whom the newspaper characterized as the “more moderate elements of the Taliban.”
One wonders, here, what makes for “moderate” Taliban. While it is tempting to explore the darker recesses of humor–and define as moderates those who’d draw the line at filming beheadings, stoning and public bastinadoes–what we mean, surely, are those who’d contemplate an abandonment of their jihad against Western forces in Afghanistan in exchange for some sort of power-sharing arrangement with the government of Hamid Karzai. It is their willingness to do deals, in other words, that makes them moderate, not the essential make-up of their beliefs and culture. That said, if they are willing to set aside their adamantine opposition to the infidel West and its puppet, Karzai, they are clearly less purist in their pursuit of an Islamist society than those who would fight to the finish. That makes them relatively moderate, if you like. Or just plain cynical.
I prefer to regard them as cynical. Why? Because I’ve met two senior Taliban “moderates,” both masterful–and disconcerting–practitioners of the cynical arts. …
Which brings us to Christopher Hitchens’ thoughts about the deal struck in Pakistan with elements of the Taliban.
… one should be careful of the seductions of this compromise. In a wishful attempt to bring peace with the Taliban in Pakistan itself, the government has recently ceded a fertile and prosperous and modernized valley province—the former princedom of Swat—to the ultraviolent votaries of the one party and the one God. This is not some desolate tribal area where government and frontier have been poorly delineated for decades, as in Waziristan. It is a short commute from the capital city of Islamabad. The Taliban have never won an election in the area; indeed, the last vote went exactly the other way. And refugees are pouring out of Swat as the fundamentalists take hold and begin their campaign of cultural and economic obliteration: no music, no schooling for females, no recognition of the writ of the central government. (See the excellent report by Jane Perlez and Pir Zubair Shah in the March 5 New York Times.)
According to this and other reports, the surrender of authority by the already crumbling Pakistani authorities has had an emboldening effect on the extremists rather than an appeasing one. The nominal interlocutor, Maulana Sufi Muhammad, with whom the deal was signed, is related by clan and ideology to much fiercer and younger figures, including those suspected in the murder of Benazir Bhutto, in the burning of hundreds of girls’ schools, in the killing of Pakistani soldiers, and in the slaughter of local tribal leaders who have resisted Taliban rule. Numberless witnesses attest that the militants show not the smallest intention of abiding by the terms of the so-called “truce.” Instead of purchasing peace, the Pakistani government has surrendered part of its heartland without a fight to those who can and will convert it into a base for further and more exorbitant demands. This is not even a postponement of the coming nightmare, which is the utter disintegration of Pakistan as a state. It is a stage in that disintegration. …
Rich Lowry says, “At least he’s calm.”
… As the financial crisis hit, he never took a position on the first AIG bailout. Perhaps this was the truest indication of his instincts on the financial crisis — namely, avoidance. To sidestep the politically risky imperative of asking Congress for even more funds to address the crisis, Geithner has resorted to complex schemes that haven’t yet been thoroughly formulated.
Perhaps Obama’s muddle-through approach to the banks will suffice until the natural resilience of the economy brings a recovery. Or perhaps, as Obama temporizes, the problem gets bigger and worse, discrediting his leadership and exposing the vision of his budget as, in the words of a headline in The Economist, “wishful, and dangerous, thinking.” Either way, Obama will be calm.
Bill Sammon broke an important story today. Turns out James Carville claimed he wanted Bush to fail and worked towards that end.
The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: “I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed.”
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president. …
Ed Morrissey reports the NY Times has confirmed it was David Axelrod who turned the administration to the Rush Limbaugh attack mode.
… And for that matter, why didn’t the New York Times report this separately? The White House has ginned up an attack machine to pillory Rush Limbaugh, but meanwhile dozens of high-level appointments have yet to be made at Treasury. They’re too overwhelmed to figure out correct protocol for Gordon Brown’s visit (and too busy to offer decent gifts), but they have the time to coordinate attacks on a radio-show host.
That’s an interesting set of priorities — for both Obama and the New York Times.
Cafe Hayek tells Paul Krugman, “Or course the Obama is screwing up. He’s the government now.”
… It takes a long time for government to spring into action. It takes a long time for government to do stuff. It even takes a long time for government to spend money. On top of all that, it is very hard for politicians, Republicans or Democrats, to say the words, “I made a mistake.” So even though I sympathize with Krugman’s view that Obama doesn’t seem to realize that we’re in a bigger mess than he may have thought and the solutions so far aren’t working, I don’t really expect a change of course until, oh, sometime close to the next Congressional election. Close means a year or so in advance.
The title of the Krugman’s piece is “Behind the Curve.” That’s the essence of government. Behind the curve. Surprised? You shouldn’t be.
Click on WORD or PDF for full content