I seemed like just a months ago that being a "cowboy president" was a bad thing.
He branded Saddam Hussein's Iraq "an outlaw regime" and took the vanquished dictator's pistol as a trophy. As for Osama bin Laden, Bush declared, "I want justice. And there's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.' " Britain's liberal newspaper The Guardian noted that "such language feeds the image overseas of Mr. Bush as a hopelessly inarticulate, trigger-happy cowboy."
That was then, this is now.
David Ignatius of the Washington Post:
The Marine Corps’ 1st Division has a macho motto: “No Better Friend. No Worse Enemy.” President Barack Obama could use a little of that Clint Eastwood-style bravura now as he bargains with Republicans over the stimulus package and tries to establish momentum and credibility for his new administration.Obama needs to make Washington politicians fear that if they cross him, they’ll pay a penalty. That’s the essence of political power -- the ability to help your friends and punish your enemies (or, to put it politely, those who obstruct your efforts to do the public’s business). All successful presidents have had this ability to inspire respect; most unsuccessful presidents have lacked it.
Cheerios-spewing time. This of course is precisely how conservatives think you should deal with terrorists, but Democrats have demured, stroking their inner wimp with shibboleths like "smart power". With Republicans though, its "I'm coming, and hell follows after me..."
The is the second article by a tingle-up-my-leg "journalist" I've read, that just stinks of fear. Ignatius is clearly panicked, as the litany of contradictions simply overwhelms the reader.
I have been a fan of Obama’s efforts to create a post-partisan politics that ends Washington’s business-as-usual..
Ignatius then goes on to recommend clearly partisan tough-guy actions.
Even more bizarre, Ignatius, after telling himself that Obama has a mandate to do whatever he likes, ends with a recommendation to defy the Democrat's tsunami of spending and vote-buying
One start would be to scrub the stimulus legislation for any hint of wasteful spending for partisan political gain. Another would be to review pending nominations anew for tax and other problems -- and any suggestion that the old rules of Washington still apply.
I have this image of Dave running through the Washington Post offices, pulling all the fire alarms and screaming "get out!, get out now!"
No rational person can be a fan of post-partisanship, because there is nothing to be a fan of. Its like being a fan of warp drive or phasers. Dude! That stuff is just made up!
In fact, the entire idea of partisanship is also a fantasy. To be partisan, non-partisan or post-partisan is not a strategy, its a tactic, and one subject to change as political realities demand it. Sometimes partisanship works for you, as I believe it did for Republican House members on this bill. The important question is to ask why does it work?
Ignatius and other Democrats echo Mr. Obama's assertion that "he won", as a foundation for spending however much they want, where they want, but as I said before--mandates require that you run your campaign on a forthright declaration of those principles. I didn't hear any promises to sign a three thousand dollar promissory note for every man woman and child in the country so the Democrats could fund every liberal wet dream for the past thirty years.
The political reality is as soon as you win an election, you start fighting the next election. What Democrats do today determines their party's fortunes in 2010 and 2012. They know that of course, which is why they are so desperate to have a dozen Republican votes so they can say, "well, everybody was doing it..." in the next election cycle.
That fig leaf won't be enough coverage if the Stimulus package doesn't do what it supposed to, and at the end of the day, that's the real unfinesseable ground truth of this process. House Republicans are no more politically courageous than anyone else, and so when they voted unanimously against H.R.1, they did so out of a risk management assessment. Failure was apparently a sure thing.
One of the major dictums of Sun Tzu's Art of War is that battles are won or lost before they are ever fought. By letting Nancy Pelosi write the bill, Obama guaranteed his defeat. Don't get me wrong--he'll get a bill and he'll sign it and speechify about it, but nevertheless he has seriously damaged his presidency. All he can do at this point is limit that damage by swallowing hard and making sure the Stimulus does what its supposed to do--stimulate the economy. My guess is that he won't do that, and practically guarantee that he becomes Carter 2.0
