Even Democrats who agree with President Obama’s ideology, respect his tenacity and admire his deliberative manner have begun to whisper: Maybe he isn’t a very good politician. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who is genetically incapable of whispering,puts it bluntly: “Ironically, the best communicator I ever saw in a campaign has turned out to be not so good at getting out the message as president.”

It is a remarkable reversal. Obama’s rise from the Illinois legislature to the presidency in four years was a real-deal, honest-to-goodness political phenomenon. I spent some time on the campaign trail with Obama during the primaries, coming away impressed by his earnestness, his touch of formality, his rhetorical ambitions — here a little Kennedy, there a little King. He consistently met the highest objective of an orator, both capturing and shaping the public mood.

It is now difficult to remember much of what he said. Even my notes had mainly to do with his style. But his message had something to do with unity, healing and national purpose. The idiom was compelling. The agenda was, well, beside the point. This image emerged unsullied from a battle with the Clinton machine. Democrats were glad to be along for the ride on the gilded chariot of Obama’s destiny.

Full article here

                          

Democratic leaders and their supporters approach the November elections with a lumpy mix of messages. It can’t be as bad as it looks (it is), and maybe losing the House would be a good thing for Democrats (it isn’t), and Americans are spoiled, ungrateful brats (not really an electoral winner). The president shifts from issue to issue in a kind of ADD without energy, managing to be frenetic and uninteresting at the same time. Now he proposes a focus on job creation — too late to influence the employment numbers before November but just in time to raise the question: Why has everything else been more urgent than jobs?

For nearly two years, American politics has been a controlled ideological experiment. A popular president, granted sizable House and Senate majorities, passed the agenda nearly every Democrat wanted — a large stimulus package and a major expansion of the federal role in health care. The economic outcome has been universally disappointing. A group of highly motivated activists has concluded that the president is a European-style social democrat who threatens the capitalist system. Many other Americans suspect he is simply out of his depth.

Soon another test commences. Barring some decisive intervening event, Obama and House Speaker John Boehner seem fated to be awkward partners in the public good. Beyond November, there will be a single political question: Can divided government work? The answer: Probably not.

Full article here

                          

Achurch in Florida is poised to commemorate an act of violence committed in the name of Islam, the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, with an act of stupidity committed in the name of Christianity, the public burning of the Koran.

This threatened libricide proves little more than the existence of a few attention-seeking crackpots in a continental country — the natural resource that makes cable news possible. But the Manhattan mosque controversy has exposed a broader, conservative Christian suspicion of mosques and Muslims. Protests against the construction of mosques in California, Tennessee and Wisconsin have often included Christian pastors. Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association, a conservative Christian group, recently wrote: “Permits should not be granted to build even one more mosque in the United States of America, let alone the monstrosity planned for Ground Zero. This is for one simple reason: Each Islamic mosque is dedicated to the overthrow of the American government.”

In this debate, grace is in short supply but irony abounds. The Christian fundamentalist view of Islam bears a striking resemblance to the New York Times’ view of Christian fundamentalism — a simplistic emphasis on the worst elements of a complex religious tradition. Both create a caricature, then assert that the Constitution is under assault by an army of straw men. The debates within Islam on the nature and application of sharia law, for example, are at least as complex as the debates among Christian theologians on the nature of social justice. And the political application of Islam differs so greatly — from Saudi Arabia to Mali to Morocco to Bosnia to Tanzania to Detroit — that it defies easy summary.

Full article here

                          

Before offering an assessment of last night’s speech, it is worth recognizing the historic nature of the moment. A little over three years ago, it was possible, even likely, that America would suffer a major military defeat at the center of its interests in the Middle East – a defeat of greater practical and psychological impact than the American loss in Vietnam. Iraq was descending into civil war, perhaps into genocide. Al-Qaeda in Iraq was gaining control over whole regions of the country. Six years after Sept. 11, terrorists and insurgents were on the verge of a victory against the United States.

Given this context, President Obama’s announcement of the end of combat operations is a tremendous national accomplishment. The outcome in Iraq, though far from ideal or settled, has demonstrated the resilience and adaptability of the American military, the patience of our country in a difficult cause, and the importance of determined wartime leadership.

This achievement deserved a historical marker, at least a modest rhetorical monument. But Obama’s effort – employing tired metaphors, culminating in a call to improve America’s “manufacturing base” and “long-term competitiveness” – was forgettable.

Returning to the standards of judgment I set out last night before the speech, the results were mixed.

• First, it should have a Lincolnian purpose – to heal the domestic divisions caused by the Iraq War, instead of laying claim to political credit for the fulfillment of a campaign pledge.

Full post here

                          

After a first year mainly focused on health reform, and a bleak December 2009 employment report, the Obama administration was finally ready to talk, in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s words, about “jobs, jobs, jobs.” Strategist David Axelrod admitted the Obama team was recalibrating to focus on the economy. President Obama said, “We have to continue to work every single day to get our economy moving again. For most Americans, and for me, that means jobs.”

Six months later, following additional health-reform drama, arcane financial reform, a national immigration debate and a sluggish oil spill response, 67 percent of Americans said the president had not focused enough on job creation.

July’s jobs report was again dreary, with 181,000 discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force entirely. Advice for the president from Democratic strategists and nervous Democratic legislators was nearly uniform: Focus on jobs. The president proceeded to enter the Manhattan mosque controversy, mark the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, and address the nation on Iraq and Afghanistan. During an interview with Brian Williams last weekend, Obama made news commenting on his religious faith, on Glenn Beck’s rally in Washington and on the “birther” movement.

This is a president who has lost control of his public message. It wanders unleashed from park to alley, stopping to sniff every cable news story along the way. Some blame a political and communications team that is reactive and undisciplined. But there is another possibility. Perhaps the president doesn’t talk about job creation because he doesn’t have much to say.

Full article here

                          

Scott Simon — the sonorous voice of NPR’s “Weekend Edition” — has written a short, tender book about the two most important people in the world. At least to him. “Baby, We Were Meant for Each Other” recounts the arrival of his two daughters, Elise and Lina, from China, while telling the stories of other families changed by adoption.

Simon describes himself as skeptical of transcendence but as taking part in a miracle. “My wife and I,” he says, “knew that Elise and Lina were our babies from the moment we received their postage-stamp portraits. Logically, I know that’s not possible. But I also know that’s how my heart, mind and body . . . reacted to their pictures. . . . I would take the photo out of my wallet in the weeks before we left to get each of our girls and hold it against my lips to whisper, ‘We’re coming, baby.’ ”

It is an unexpected form of human affection — meeting an unrelated stranger and, within moments, being willing to care for her, even to die for her. The relationship results from a broken bond but creates ties as strong as genetics, stronger than race or tribe. It is a particularly generous kind of parental love that embraces a life one did not give.

International adoption has its critics, who allege a kind of imperialism that robs children of their identity. Simon responds, “We have adopted real, modern little girls, not mere vessels of a culture.” Ethnicity is an abstraction — often an admirable abstraction, but not comparable to the needs of a child living in an orphanage or begging in roving bands. Adopted Chinese girls are refugees from a terrible oppression — a one-child policy that Simon calls “one of the great crimes of history.” Every culture or race is outweighed when the life of a child is placed on the other side of the balance.

Full article here

                          

So the “summer of recovery” swelters on, with Democrats sun-blistered, pestered by bottle flies, sand in their swimsuits, water in their ears. Jobless claims increase, Republicans lead the generic congressional ballot, and George W. Bush is six points more popular than President Obama in “front-line” Democratic districts that are most vulnerable to a Republican takeover. Still, Democrats hug the hope that Obama is really the liberal Ronald Reagan — but without wit, humor, an explainable ideology or an effective economic plan. Other than that, the resemblance is uncanny.

Yet the Republican Party suffers its own difficulty — an untested ideology at the core of its appeal.

In the normal course of events, political movements begin as intellectual arguments, often conducted for years in serious books and journals. To study the Tea Party movement, future scholars will sift through the collected tweets of Sarah Palin. Without a history of clarifying, refining debates, Republicans need to ask three questions of candidates rising on the Tea Party wave:

First, do you believe that Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional? This seems to be the unguarded view of Colorado Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ken Buck and other Tea Party advocates of “constitutionalism.” It reflects a conviction that the federal government has only those powers specifically enumerated in the Constitution — which doesn’t mention retirement insurance or health care.

This view is logically consistent — as well as historically uninformed, morally irresponsible and politically disastrous. The Constitution, in contrast to the Articles of Confederation, granted broad power to the federal government to impose taxes and spend funds to “provide for . . . the general welfare” — at least if Alexander Hamilton and a number of Supreme Court rulings are to be believed. In practice, Social Security abolition would push perhaps 13 million elderly Americans into destitution, blurring the line between conservative idealism and Social Darwinism.

Full article here

                          

The most destructive gap for President Obama is not the Republican lead on the generic congressional ballot or even a job disapproval that has surpassed approval — it is the gap between aspiration and reality.

The Manhattan mosque controversy showed the problem in compressed form. First came the Obama of high-toned principle (largely the right principle, in my view). Then a politically motivated recalibration. Then a scrambling staff explanation. Then an embarrassed silence, since it is difficult to clarify the clarification of a clarification. Then the president’s regretful assertion of “no regrets.”

It was more than a lapse. From the firing of Shirley Sherrod to the obsession with Fox News to lashing the “professional left,” the Obama administration engages in a daily hypocrisy. It attacks the sound and fury of the cable news cycle while being entirely captive to its rhythms. In the process, it often appears reactive, windblown and unprincipled.

This gap between ideals and practice is becoming a defining narrative of the administration. Obama once promised, for example, to end the “divisive food fight in Washington.” Apparently there is an exception for sugary, frozen beverages. In his new stump speech, he says: “We’re slipping and sliding and sweating, and the other side, the Republicans, they’re standing there with their Slurpees watching us.” In Seattle, the president of the United States pantomimed drinking a Slurpee to mock his opponents. A campaigner such as Ronald Reagan could draw political blood with a wink and a smile. Obama’s partisan rhetoric manages to be prickly, mean-spirited and unfunny. On the campaign trail, he taunts and whines. He does not charm.

Full article here

                          

President Obama has a peculiar talent for enraging his critics while deflating the enthusiasm of his friends, on full display in the Manhattan mosque controversy.

His first intervention, at a White House dinner for Ramadan on Friday, was an unqualified defense of both religious liberty and religious tolerance, implying that opposition to a mosque near Ground Zero violated both. In his second intervention, in an unplanned exchange with a reporter on Saturday, he insisted that he was not commenting “on the wisdom” of building the mosque, merely affirming the right to a construction permit. It was not a contradiction, but it was a marked change in tone. Obama managed to collect all the political damage for taking an unpopular stand without gaining credit for political courage.

But being hapless does not make the president wrong.

Though columnists are loath to admit it, there is a difference between being a commentator and being president. Pundits have every right to raise questions about the construction of an Islamic center near Ground Zero. Where is the funding coming from? What are the motives of its supporters? Is the symbolism insensitive?

But the view from the Oval Office differs from the view from a keyboard. A president does not merely have opinions; he has duties to the Constitution and to the citizens he serves — including millions of Muslim citizens. His primary concern is not the sifting of sensitivities but the protection of the American people and the vindication of their rights.

Full article here

                          

The final state to ratify the 14th Amendment was Ohio — in September 2003. The Ohio Legislature had passed the amendment in 1867 but rescinded its approval a year later, claiming it was “contrary to the best interests of the white race.” When Ohio finally rectified this embarrassing bit of history, just one legislator — Republican state Rep. Tom Brinkman from Cincinnati – voted against it. His opposition was viewed as an isolated curiosity.

Now another Ohio politician, Rep. John Boehner, the House minority leader, questions the centerpiece commitment of the 14th Amendment: birthright citizenship. He is joined by Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), along with Sens. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) and Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

The amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” This is not the only place in the Constitution where birth is decisive. Any “natural born citizen” who meets age and residency requirements can be elected president.

Critics of birthright citizenship are in revolt against the plain meaning of words. They sometimes assert that “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” must exclude illegal immigrants. It doesn’t. Undocumented immigrants and their children are fully subject to American laws. The idea of “jurisdiction” had a specific meaning in the congressional debate surrounding approval of the 14th Amendment. “The language was designed,” says historian Garrett Epps, “to exclude two and only two groups: (1) children of diplomats accredited to the United States and (2) members of Indian tribes who maintained quasi-sovereign status under federal Indian law.”

Read the full article here