Friday
Jan222010
Surprised, Mr President? Now I'm Worried.
“Robert Gibbs: I think he would count himself among those like me that was surprised, absolutely.”
That was Gibbs' response to my question at Wednesday's White House briefing about the results of the Massachusetts Senate election. It's a surprising and disturbing admission.
I suggested in my question that it's surprising that the President is surprised. He's the head of the Democratic Party. He's presumably aware of the state of politics in the country. I pointed out that the losses in New Jersey and Virginia had already been bad for the Democrats. I asked why he is surprised. Is he a little out of touch with what is going on in the country? Is he not being adequately briefed?
Gibbs said more. He said the surprise and frustration happened over many days, and that when people are asked does the President care about people like you, 70 percent of the people say yes.
I don't want my president to be surprised by political developments in his own party. I want him to be informed. I want him to be briefed. I want him to be in touch with where the voters are.
Also surprising was a reply Robert Gibbs gave to a question asked in a gaggle last week. He was asked why liberals are less enthusiastic or less inspired than they were in 08. He said:
“I don't know (long pause) why some segment of political observers don't seem to be as motivated.” He went on to give a long answer about “going forward with new ideas for economic recovery and creating a new foundation, or going back to some of the policies that caused this type of economic devastation to take place”.
But it was “I don't know (long pause)” and what followed that struck me as his first, most natural response. He really didn't know.
If President Obama is going to be surprised, then a 7.0 earthquake in Haiti should be about the only thing that should do it.
The President seems to have thought about his administration's disconnect with the American people because in his interview with George Stephanopoulos, he said “I think, you know, what they ended up seeing is this feeling of remoteness and detachment where there's these technocrats up here making decisions. Maybe some of them are good, maybe some of them aren't, but do they really get us and what we're going through?”
The answer is that he's partly right; people didn't think he got them last year, but communicating better to the American people, which is what it seems the White House thinks it needs to do now, is not the whole answer. They've got to be able to hear from the American people, and right now they're not even understanding what motivates their base.
If the White House hadn't wasted half the year trying to be bipartisan (i.e. one vote) on health care, they could have had it long before the Massachusetts election.
Lesson: Washington in 2010 is not a bipartisan town. Three senators working on energy is not tripartisanship. Give it up. The country's not interested, and it will drain time and resources. Focus on jobs, deficit reduction, the economy and bank regulation. Be passionate.
The White House lost liberals because they gave up the public option, escalated in Afghanistan, seemed cozy with Wall Street, followed Bush on national security decisions, etc.
The President was surprised. Robert Gibbs was surprised and didn't know. Was Rahm Emanuel surprised? What did David Axelrod know? If the Democrats don't turn this around and salvage something in November, then what did the President know and when did he know it will take on a whole new meaning.
That was Gibbs' response to my question at Wednesday's White House briefing about the results of the Massachusetts Senate election. It's a surprising and disturbing admission.
I suggested in my question that it's surprising that the President is surprised. He's the head of the Democratic Party. He's presumably aware of the state of politics in the country. I pointed out that the losses in New Jersey and Virginia had already been bad for the Democrats. I asked why he is surprised. Is he a little out of touch with what is going on in the country? Is he not being adequately briefed?
Gibbs said more. He said the surprise and frustration happened over many days, and that when people are asked does the President care about people like you, 70 percent of the people say yes.
I don't want my president to be surprised by political developments in his own party. I want him to be informed. I want him to be briefed. I want him to be in touch with where the voters are.
Also surprising was a reply Robert Gibbs gave to a question asked in a gaggle last week. He was asked why liberals are less enthusiastic or less inspired than they were in 08. He said:
“I don't know (long pause) why some segment of political observers don't seem to be as motivated.” He went on to give a long answer about “going forward with new ideas for economic recovery and creating a new foundation, or going back to some of the policies that caused this type of economic devastation to take place”.
But it was “I don't know (long pause)” and what followed that struck me as his first, most natural response. He really didn't know.
If President Obama is going to be surprised, then a 7.0 earthquake in Haiti should be about the only thing that should do it.
The President seems to have thought about his administration's disconnect with the American people because in his interview with George Stephanopoulos, he said “I think, you know, what they ended up seeing is this feeling of remoteness and detachment where there's these technocrats up here making decisions. Maybe some of them are good, maybe some of them aren't, but do they really get us and what we're going through?”
The answer is that he's partly right; people didn't think he got them last year, but communicating better to the American people, which is what it seems the White House thinks it needs to do now, is not the whole answer. They've got to be able to hear from the American people, and right now they're not even understanding what motivates their base.
If the White House hadn't wasted half the year trying to be bipartisan (i.e. one vote) on health care, they could have had it long before the Massachusetts election.
Lesson: Washington in 2010 is not a bipartisan town. Three senators working on energy is not tripartisanship. Give it up. The country's not interested, and it will drain time and resources. Focus on jobs, deficit reduction, the economy and bank regulation. Be passionate.
The White House lost liberals because they gave up the public option, escalated in Afghanistan, seemed cozy with Wall Street, followed Bush on national security decisions, etc.
The President was surprised. Robert Gibbs was surprised and didn't know. Was Rahm Emanuel surprised? What did David Axelrod know? If the Democrats don't turn this around and salvage something in November, then what did the President know and when did he know it will take on a whole new meaning.
tagged 
White House, scott brown in Frontpage 2, Opinion
White House, scott brown in Frontpage 2, Opinion
Reader Comments (1)
Your article "Surprised, Mr President? Now I’m Worried" is interesting and on point. The most perplexing issue for the American public is that this adminstration does not hear or understand us. Communicate better? They have had the most speeches and visits in the first year of any presidency than any other. When you combine that with their actions, does it point to remoteness, lack of understanding, or perhaps is it simple arrogance? We deserve/require to be listened to and understood, and when their actions reflect that, it will by far be more effective than a cleverly written speech.