Sarah's Thoughts
High Poll Numbers, Sure, But What Has He DONE?
Ah, the exciting and completely arbitrary 100-day mark of the Obama administration. Since everyone else is talking about this landmark, at least when they are not discussing the pig flu that is sweeping the globe faster than the macarena, I thought I would reflect for a moment as well.
I must admit, I’m a bit stumped. What exactly has he accomplished? What do his supporters point to and say, “See … that’s why I voted for this guy!”? Yes, I know he has sparkly approval numbers. That’s lovely for him. But, what has he DONE? I’ve come up with my own list.
1. Break campaign promises. President Obama promised while a candidate for his current office that he would place any non-emergency legislation before the American public in an online format for five days before signing the bill. He’s one for eleven so far on that count. Were all of these laws considered to be “emergency” needs for the country? Not really. Don’t forget his extended weekend to Chicago to celebrate Valentine’s Day while the stimulus bill waited for his signature.
2. Gift neat little gadgets without proofreading. What an impressive diplomatic move on our part! Take a popular television commercial for Circuit City and incorporate into our foreign policy with Russia! Darn … if only the guys at the State Department would have made sure that the button said “Reset” instead of “Overcharge.” That would have been a totally brilliant move in geopolitics. Historians would have written books about it!
3. Appoint someone who doesn’t pay his taxes to supervise our tax collection. I know that Secretary Geitner is not the only Cabinet appointee who failed to pay Uncle Sam, but his omission is certainly the most offensive. The man who is now in charge of tax policy cannot even be trusted to follow the laws himself. But, I guess we can make exceptions for Obama’s chosen ones.
4. Treat a REAL federal responsibility like a silly matter of semantics. While President Obama is all excited about the idea of running private companies, inflating our tires, hiring our teachers, buying our refrigerators, and tracking us all with GPS devices supposedly intended for tax collection purposes, he is failing to take seriously the most important duty of the federal government, which is to protect the homeland. We now have someone in charge of this crucial responsibility who thinks that the 9/11 terrorists came from Canada and that acts of terrorism should be referred to as “man-made disasters.”
5. Pass the buck. When Harry Truman was president, he kept a sign on his desk that read, “The Buck Stops Here.” President Obama should have a sign that reads, “Looking for Someone to Blame.” In his first press conference, he deferred to Secretary Geitner to share “clear and specific plans” instead of explaining his proposals for economic recovery and their potential effects. Later, when asked about prosecuting members of the Bush administration , he said that he would leave it up to Attorney General Holder. These men work for you, sir. Ultimately, everything lies at your feet. Kind of scary, huh? Stop protecting yourself by associating the tough stuff with others.
6. Pass the buck, part two. President Obama doesn’t just make his administration’s decisions the responsibility of others before they happen, but also after the fact. At the end of the day, it is the president’s problem if a federal agency decides that Air Force One needs some Glamour Shots over lower Manhattan at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars to the taxpayers and with a known chance of panic among the area’s residents and workers. Don’t get all pissy about it. Take responsibility for it! You found out that one of your planes was taken for some publicity photos at the same time as we did? That’s comforting … and not quite believable.
7. Make up languages. While speaking in Europe, President Obama uttered the phrase, “I don’t know what the term is in Austrian.” I thought he was the most brilliant, sophisticated, cosmopolitan president that we’ve ever had?
8. Ignore your role as head of your party. As the sitting president, you are considered the head of your party. Every high school textbook teaches this as one of the eight roles of the presidency. As soon as Senator Specter announced he was jumping ship and joining the Democratic Party to save his political hide, President Obama offered his full support . His press secretary, Robert Gibbs, indicated that this will include campaign stops and fund raising. It seems more than a bit inappropriate to be playing favorites amongst your party’s candidates. If no other Democrats appear on the primary ballot, then go for it. Otherwise, this promise is simply unprofessional and unfair.
So, of which of these accomplishments should we be most proud as a nation? So many wonderful choices!

















April 30th, 2009 at 6:36 am
…simply proud that we are 100 days closer to a different administration….
April 30th, 2009 at 4:31 pm
Is it really wise for the President to be in charge of prosecuting people? Personally, I think a separation between the two offices is a good thing.
But, ummm, Presidents, Governors, etc…get involved in primaries all the time. He’s not the Chairman of some county party.
April 30th, 2009 at 4:39 pm
The Cabinet is there to advise the President. They should not make decisions independent of the President. President Obama can let Holder know what he would like to see happen, and then ask for Holder’s opinion on the legality and wisdom of such an action. But, right now, by going back and forth on his statements regarding the issue and then putting the issue squarely on Holder’s shoulders, I think he is showing a lack of leadership here.
Admittedly, my #8 is not really a big deal. I just think it’s poor form when any elected official gets involved in primaries (unless the only other candidate in the primary is a disgusting character who must be disavowed). I think it’s inappropriate to use the power of the presidency to sway voters within your party.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:00 am
Sarah,
So the President should be deciding who to prosecute and who not to prosecute? That seems rather monarchical to me…also, does the “buck stops here” style of leadership apply to military operations as well, or is having the commanders on the ground make policy decisions still the GOP line?
As for #8, personally I’d prefer it if Obama didn’t back Specter and made him work for the Democratic nomination, given that there are other candidates who could win in a General election who’d back the Democratic agenda more forcefully…however, if that was the deal required to get Specter to switch sides, and the alternative was a year of Specter going hard-right to appease an isolated and detached group of wingers in Pennsylvania, then I suppose it served his ultimate purpose of passing through his agenda.
May 1st, 2009 at 10:17 am
Yes, unless there is a personal conflict of interest, I believe the president can make that final decision. I don’t think the Attorney General should ever be able to prosecute someone if the President does not agree with that effort. And, yes, the “buck stops here” also applies to military decisions. The military leaders certainly should be among the primary advisors when the president makes a military decision. However, the president is the commander-in-chief. I do not believe the GOP line was ever to have the commanders make policy decisions, but instead take their expertise and first-hand knowledge seriously.