Did President Obama Waste His Oval Office Address?

Insert memorable quote here.  Seriously, I just finished watching President Obama give his first televised speech from the Oval Office, and with all the hype comparing the speech to JFK’s “ask not what you can do for your country” speech and FDR’s famous inaugural address (“We have nothing to fear but fear itself”), I was left feeling a bit underwhelmed.  Don’t get me wrong, President Obama is a great speaker, and while the jury’s still out on a public opinion reaction to it, I have a feeling it will have an effect on public perception of the recovery effort.

Though it was a great speech, and doing it in the Oval Office certainly added the sense of urgency, but to me this speech felt more like a normal Presidential speech, as in nothing truly special.  The Oval Office address is supposed to be the game-changer, the speech that incites the nation to action.  For instance, George W. Bush spoke from the Oval Office right after 9/11; though other Presidents have each addressed different issues from the Oval Office, this is the best example of the kind of speech the occasion is meant for.  Coming out of the speech with no memorable quotes to throw up here makes me wonder if this speech would have been better if it had been made from the Gulf coast.  Then again, successful speeches are not determined solely by their memorable quotes, but also by their policy implications.

The Return of Healthcare Reform

Lately, it seems like healthcare reform is like a zombie: it just keeps coming back to life when everyone thinks it is dead.  Today Yesterday (dang clocks and my workload!) President Obama finally put his own two cents into the debate.  The President had to come up with something to revive his signature policy goal, and to an extent, it has worked; people are talking about healthcare reform again, to be sure.  Whether this would have happened on its own without Presidential involvement, we will never know.  The President also faced a time crunch: he had promised the American public that there would be a bill a few days before the bipartisan healthcare summit taking place this Thursday.  Nobody in Congress has indicated that they particularly like the latest healthcare proposal, but aside from the expected Republican howling, nobody has really come out against it either; even the Republican criticism is somewhat limited at this point.  Granted, it is still very early; the bill was only released yesterday after all, but no reaction, or a limited reaction, in these circumstances may be just what the doctor ordered.

However, it is surprising that many Senators, especially on the left, have not come out in support of the newest proposal.  Though it is possibly out of institutional loyalty, many of the Democratic Senators have little reason to not support the President’s health bill as it is very similar to the one that the Senate itself passed just before Christmas.  According to CNN, President Obama’s bill appears to take the Senate’s version and improve on it, while trying to incorporate some of the more moderate provisions of the House’s bill.  Naturally, this means that many House Democrats don’t like the bill, as it excludes many of their favorite proposals.  Another point of contention: at approximately $950 billion it is more expensive than the Senate’s bill, though not by much and still less expensive than the House proposal.  However, that number has not been verified by the Congressional Budget Office yet, so it could very well change.  Just as I have done with the other healthcare proposals, here are the most interesting parts of it, with commentary of course:

Trouble Ahead for Obama?

Man, the Democrats just cannot seem to find any good news these days.  Healthcare reform is stalled, the unemployment picture still isn’t pretty, they have lost their supermajority in the Senate with the arrival of Scott Brown, oh, and Congress has lost about half a month’s work due to the “snowpocalypse” that has descended Washington.  Today, a new poll came out that only adds to their troubles; it shows that President Obama is, for all intents and purposes, tied with a generic Republican candidate for President in 2012.  Granted, we are only just over a year into Mr. Obama’s Presidency, but these numbers are huge.  Now, not only do the Democrats have to worry about this year’s midterm elections, but they also face the very real risk of losing the White House in two years as well.    While technically President Obama has a 2-point edge over an unnamed Republican, statistically the two are tied, as the poll cites a margin of error of plus or minus 4 points; in essence, the actual numbers could be off by as much as 4% if the result of the poll of roughly 1,000 voters were to be scaled up to the entire country.  Looking deeper at the results, the Democrats have plenty more reasons to worry.

See? They CAN Play Nice!

Today, something remarkable happened in Baltimore, Maryland.  After a year of bitter partisanship in Congress, with Republicans presenting a united front against everything the Democrats have put forward, most people thought a civil discourse between the two parties was just about impossible.  Until today, when President Obama addressed House Republicans during their retreat at a hotel in Baltimore, to the surprise of many political observers, including this one sadly enough, with cameras rolling.  After watching the discourse online, I can say it was simply refreshing to see our political leaders actually engaging something resembling a civilized debate.  However, the most telling sign of just how much of a home run this event was for the President is this: according to the Huffington Post, not only did Fox News cut their broadcast of the meeting before it ended, but a Republican aide happened to admit that “allowing the cameras to roll was a mistake.”

“A New Foundation?”

Did you watch the State of the Union tonight?  If there is one event that makes a majority of Americans watch the news each year, it is the State of the Union address.  It is, after all that one time of the year that the President gets to try and set the tone of the political agenda for the coming year.  Tonight was no different on that count, but the circumstances are far from normal.  After all, no President has been this embattled just a year into his term.  Tonight marked not quite a radical change of pace, but a recalibration of priorities and a shift of focus from last year’s policies.

Of course, this wouldn’t be a normal post for an occasion like this if I didn’t extract the key parts of the speech and analyze them.  I’ll get to that in a second, but first, a little background on the buildup to tonight’s speech.  The State of the Union could not have come at a better time politically for President Obama.  After all, last week was the stunning election of Scott Brown, a Republican to the Massachusetts Senate seat held by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy; that was, in turn, followed by the shocker the Supreme Court handed down in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.  Of course, all of this happened in the broader context of a public increasingly skeptical of the Obama Administration; his approval rating has been slipping gradually over the last few months.  Okay, enough buildup, here are the main points of the State of the Union address, along with the analysis you have come to expect (and with a little humor, because I feel like it):

The Continuing Saga of the Salahis

Ah, I do love the trend in American politics to append “-gate” to every major scandal that breaks.  In fact, I have seen and heard the story of how Tareq and Michaele Salahi’s gate-crashed President Obama’s first state dinner “Gatecrashergate.”  Quite ridiculous, in my opinion, however it is entertaining, to say the least.

But down to business: this week, the House Homeland Security Committee began hearings on the whole matter, and three notable guests may not be crashing this party.  The couple at the center of this scandal, as well as the White House Social Secretary, Desiree Rogers, have stated they will probably not testify at the hearings, despite having an invitation from Congress.  Apparently, a Congressional hearing just isn’t the “can’t-miss” event of the year.  However if the Committee’s Chairman has his way, it really will be, by way of a Congressional subpoena.

Last week, as I am sure you know by now, Tareq and Michaele Salahi managed to worm their way into the state dinner honoring the Indian Prime Minister.  The hearings in Congress are, of course, to determine just what went wrong that night, and so far, the only person with a direct connection to this incident agreeing to testify at this point is the director of the Secret Service, Mark Sullivan.  While according to the article linked above he has taken responsibility for the errors that occurred, like many on the Committee, I do not think the Secret Service is the only group that failed that night.  While I can see the reasoning behind the Salahis’ reluctance to testify before Congress, why is the White House refusing to let the Social Secretary?

The White House social secretary is the one ultimately responsible for organizing the logistics of state dinners and other similar major events, including drawing up the guest list.  If there is anyone who can say with any authority whether the Salahis were invited, it would be the social secretary.  In addition, according to this article, for the past twenty years, a representative from the social secretary’s office has been at each checkpoint.  The mere fact that it wasn’t done last week should be enough of a reason to compel Desiree Rogers to testify.

What makes it more ridiculous, is the fact that the White House is invoking separation of powers to protect the social secretary.  Why? The separation of powers doctrine does provide protections for each branch of government against crusades by one of the other two, but I highly doubt this is what the courts and the Founding Fathers had in mind when they considered this doctrine over time.  The way I think about the separation of powers defense, as it were, is that it is intended to protect the President and senior officials, those whose jobs are high enough to need Senate confirmation.  According to About.com, the White House social secretary is not one of these.  In addition, history is working against the President in this case; more-senior officials than the social secretary testified during Watergate, for example.  While separation of powers is much more spicy than the generic “executive privilege” claims of years past, it still is the wrong doctrine to be invoking for this.

Oh, and don’t forget: this is all coming from a President who promised the  American people unprecedented transparency.  Prohibiting the social secretary  to testify under oath is about the least-transparent road to take in this situation.  What does the administration have to hide in this affair?  What is there to gain by risking the subpoena?  Nonetheless, I have a feeling that those wonderful little slips of paper are on their way to the Salahis and Desiree Rogers’ desk if this keeps up.

President Obama Commits to Copenhagen

I apologize for the lack of posts up until tonight, things have been hectic as I’ve made my way home for the Thanksgiving holiday, as I am sure it has for many of you.  Today, we were greeted with the news that President Obama has decided to travel to Copenhagen to formally introduce America’s proposal for addressing global climate change during the conference in Copenhagen next month.  This is the first time America has committed to a definite proposal about fixing the climate in the last decade, but is there something else behind the trip?

First, here are the details of the proposal, as discussed in the New York Times today.  According to the article, President Obama’s goals are in line with the bill that passed the House of Representatives earlier this year but languishes in the Senate.  Specifically, the President is calling for  emissions reductions to approximately 17% below 2005 levels by 2020 and up to 83% by 2050.  Obviously, the President wants to agree with the legislation already making its way through Congress, in order to avoid another conflict with Congress and have something to put on the table at Copenhagen.  However, one fun fact is that this is the second instance, at least that I can remember off-hand, that President Obama is deferring to Congressional opinion on a legislative priority.  In this case, I find it acceptable in the name of making everything work faster, but let us recall the last major priority that President Obama left up to Congress: healthcare.

That being said, with the consensus that is forming around the need to address climate change, this bill may not run into the same problems that healthcare reform has.  On the other hand, the bill passed the House in June; you would think the Senate could have gotten its act together to debate and vote on it by now.  At the very least, President Obama has something to put on the table at the beginning of the conference.

There is no doubt that the U.S. proposal is a game-changer.  As one of the largest contributors to global climate change, nothing meaningful will be done on climate change without an American commitment.  However, Senate leaders want to see firm commitments from large developing nations such as China and India before they will approve the climate bill, as they recognize any unilateral action by the U.S. will not work.  In addition, the timing of President Obama’s visit is  something that should raise a few questions.  The fact is, President Obama happens to be visiting the summit on December 9th, a day before his appearance in Oslo to accept the Nobel Prize that has drawn criticism from many in the U.S.

It could be seen that President Obama is trying to counter the critics by appearing at this summit, instead of going in order to promote climate change.  It is possible, after all, to view this as President Obama trying to counter the hit he took by making his speech to promote Chicago’s unsuccessful Olympic bid, or the criticism of his winning the Nobel in the first place.  While I approve of the trip to Copenhagen and the Nobel decision several weeks ago, the Copenhagen trip would have been better-positioned if it had been at the end of the conference, when many other world leaders plan to arrive.

And the Nobel Prize goes to President Obama. Wait, what?

Today, we all woke up to the news that President Obama had won the Nobel Peace Prize.  All of us, including President Obama.  It was so surprising that nobody, even the people who watch for signs of who would get it,  had even a clue that President Obama would win.  In fact, he did win, but did he deserve it?

I tend to think not.  I am not alone; the Wall Street Journal and CNN both report on criticism of the committee’s choice.  In addition, nearly everyone I talk to about it questions the logic behind awarding the Peace Prize to President Obama, whom many claim “has not done anything.”  While I can accept the logic that the committee “wants to encourage him”, there were many more deserving candidates.  While President Obama has great plans, other candidates had actually done concrete things that should have counted for more.  For instance, and this was really surprising to me, Gandhi never received the Peace Prize, as is mentioned in the Journal article.  Who is more deserving of it than Gandhi?

Even this year, there were several candidates who should have gotten it over President Obama in the eyes of many.  Due to the nature of the selection process, nobody but the committee knows who is on the short list of candidates until 50 years after.  However, it is known that among the record 205 candidates before the short list was developed was the Colombian lawmaker who helped free Venezuelan hostages held by rebels.  Since organizations are included among the nominations, I like TechCrunch’s idea: give it to Twitter, as a recognition for its role in helping the Iran opposition protests.

Speaking of which, was the decision political?  By nature, the Peace Prize is a political one, but it appears there may have been political motivations to give Pres. Obama the Prize.  After all, the nominations were accepted starting back in September of last year, before President Obama was even elected.  The nominations were due by February 1, so close to the inauguration that one can only see it as a slap to former President Bush.  I think that was the real reason behind the decision.