Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest

Not-So-Smooth Operator
Obama increasingly comes across as devious and dishonest.
By PEGGY NOONAN
Updated March 29, 2012, 6:52 p.m. ET

Something's happening to President Obama's relationship with those who are inclined not to like his policies. They are now inclined not to like him. His supporters would say, "Nothing new there," but actually I think there is. I'm referring to the broad, stable, nonradical, non-birther right. Among them the level of dislike for the president has ratcheted up sharply the past few months.

It's not due to the election, and it's not because the Republican candidates are so compelling and making such brilliant cases against him. That, actually, isn't happening.

What is happening is that the president is coming across more and more as a trimmer, as an operator who's not operating in good faith. This is hardening positions and leading to increased political bitterness. And it's his fault, too. As an increase in polarization is a bad thing, it's a big fault.

The shift started on Jan. 20, with the mandate that agencies of the Catholic Church would have to provide services the church finds morally repugnant. The public reaction? "You're kidding me. That's not just bad judgment and a lack of civic tact, it's not even constitutional!" Faced with the blowback, the president offered a so-called accommodation that even its supporters recognized as devious. Not ill-advised, devious. Then his operatives flooded the airwaves with dishonest—not wrongheaded, dishonest—charges that those who defend the church's religious liberties are trying to take away your contraceptives.

What a sour taste this all left. How shocking it was, including for those in the church who'd been in touch with the administration and were murmuring about having been misled.

Events of just the past 10 days have contributed to the shift. There was the open-mic conversation with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev in which Mr. Obama pleaded for "space" and said he will have "more flexibility" in his negotiations once the election is over and those pesky voters have done their thing. On tape it looked so bush-league, so faux-sophisticated. When he knew he'd been caught, the president tried to laugh it off by comically covering a mic in a following meeting. It was all so . . . creepy.

Next, a boy of 17 is shot and killed under disputed and unclear circumstances. The whole issue is racially charged, emotions are high, and the only memorable words from the president's response were, "If I had a son he'd look like Trayvon" At first it seemed OK—not great, but all right—but as the story continued and suddenly there were death threats and tweeted addresses and congressmen in hoodies, it seemed insufficient to the moment. At the end of the day, the public reaction seemed to be: "Hey buddy, we don't need you to personalize what is already too dramatic, it's not about you."

Now this week the Supreme Court arguments on ObamaCare, which have made that law look so hollow, so careless, that it amounts to a characterological indictment of the administration. The constitutional law professor from the University of Chicago didn't notice the centerpiece of his agenda was not constitutional? How did that happen?

Maybe a stinging decision is coming, maybe not, but in a purely political sense this is how it looks: We were in crisis in 2009—we still are—and instead of doing something strong and pertinent about our economic woes, the president wasted history's time. He wasted time that was precious—the debt clock is still ticking!—by following an imaginary bunny that disappeared down a rabbit hole.

The high court's hearings gave off an overall air not of political misfeasance but malfeasance.

All these things have hardened lines of opposition, and left opponents with an aversion that will not go away.

I am not saying that the president has a terrible relationship with the American people. I'm only saying he's made his relationship with those who oppose him worse.

In terms of the broad electorate, I'm not sure he really has a relationship. A president only gets a year or two to forge real bonds with the American people. In that time a crucial thing he must establish is that what is on his mind is what is on their mind. This is especially true during a crisis.

From the day Mr. Obama was sworn in, what was on the mind of the American people was financial calamity—unemployment, declining home values, foreclosures. These issues came within a context of some overarching questions: Can America survive its spending, its taxing, its regulating, is America over, can we turn it around?

That's what the American people were thinking about.

But the new president wasn't thinking about that. All the books written about the creation of economic policy within his administration make clear the president and his aides didn't know it was so bad, didn't understand the depth of the crisis, didn't have a sense of how long it would last. They didn't have their mind on what the American people had their mind on.

The president had his mind on health care. And, to be fair-minded, health care was part of the economic story. But only a part! And not the most urgent part. Not the most frightening, distressing, immediate part. Not the 'Is America over?' part.

And so the relationship the president wanted never really knitted together. Health care was like the birth-control mandate: It came from his hermetically sealed inner circle, which operates with what seems an almost entirely abstract sense of America. They know Chicago, the machine, the ethnic realities. They know Democratic Party politics. They know the books they've read, largely written by people like them—bright, credentialed, intellectually cloistered. But there always seems a lack of lived experience among them, which is why they were so surprised by the town hall uprisings of August 2009 and the 2010 midterm elections.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...7312043447691520.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop

 

It's called desperation, he's always been a scumbag.

 

Peggy always finds a real point that lies just under the surface just waiting to boil up.

Obama has surrounded himself with yes men and like thinkers. Contrary to what he said he would do, his aids and advisors are simply reflections of Obama's ideaology. Combine that with his bone headed belief in his self importance and there is little surprise that his policies, statements and actions are self centered and not nation centered.

Even Jimmy Carter had a moral compass. Obama has none.

 

I think she's hit the nail on the head with this and has expressed something that's been in the back of my mind for a while.

 

Noonan makes some very good points, but in my opinion she missed a far bigger one. She says he has ruined his relationship with those on the right, people who disagree with him on policy but had formerly respected him as a person. True enough but they were never going to vote for him anyway.

His bigger problem is with the independents and moderates, the soccer moms and small business owners, people who normally wouldn't have voted for an inexperienced, far left former community organizer. They sensed they could be part of something historical in 2008 and had every reason to believe, at least in their own minds, that Obama was someone special who merited this moment in history.

That illusion has been shattered. Now they feel they were misled by the media and sold a bill of goods. They see a president who is more interested in partying with rappers and the hollywood left than the price of gas or voters' economic problems. They hear him blame everything on Bush and shake their heads. They look for leadership and see political gameplaying and crude demagoguery. They were told they were electing a post-racial president who would heal racial divisions. They got a guy who sees everything in racial terms and did nothing to defuse the Florida tinderbox created by his supporters.

Perhaps Obama's biggest advantage in 2008 was his opponent, a dislikeable older guy who ran a dreadful campaign. Obama won't have that luxury this time. Romney is handsome, self-assured and intelligent. He has a long record of achievement that dwarfs Obama's thin resume. He is a reassuring figure at a time when voters are looking for reassurance.

 

I really hope Romney wins..financially,these 4 years have been some of the worst of my life but my brain really tells me it will be an Obama win

 

A devious and dishonest politician? Say it ain't so. Broken promises, unrealized expectations, and shattered dreams are par for the course. Somebody wants a scoop, let's talk about one that ain't a crook.

 

Almost no one wants to. Apparently too many are afraid of losing their free ice cream. (no pun intended)

 

His biggest advantage in '08 was that he was running against Bush (if you will) and McCain was represented as a continuation of a weak President's policies, similar to Carter and Ford in '76. Repubs in '76 were running as fast as they could from a disgraced administration and saw Ford as an extension of it, just as they were with Bush in '08. Obama and the Dems needed a boogieman and Bush was they perfect foil at the perfect time to fill that need. We are now 4 yrs removed from that and those who would lean right may not be so quick to run from the right again.

 

I wonder if there will be riots if Obama loses.