How Do Dumb Things Happen?

The lesson plans were neutral, the opposition is over reacting as usual to purposely damage progress.

As to the resignation, the right thing was done. I must say though that Van Jones has helped more struggling people in his life than the entire Bush family's lives put together and you focus on President Obama's “apparent" mistakes compared to George W Bush's horrendous Presidency?

Incredible.

Just ask Nancy Pelosi how moronic things make it to the stage.

She and most of the other 434 members of the House have been sending "Giglis" to the stage for many decades now.

Thank the good Lord that most of them bomb.


It comes from "groupthink" or mob mentality, or even Obamamania.
LOL

Hard to take any comment seriously from someone who willingly calls himself JeffersonDavis.

PatrickE, I think I'm close to the answer. Obama's main strength is making his opposition look bad, while he comes off as the sober adult. Part of this is strategy and planned by events, while the other half of it is just political opportunity during crisis or curveballs thrown at him. So when it comes to issues that aren't necessarily about him (see Van Jones, all the other vetting scandals), Obama looks clumsy and amateurish. This school address kerfluffle was actually a planned event (why DIDN'T they release the text beforehand is a valid question) so the Rightwing goes bonkers over something or other and Obama then comes out smelling like a rose once again. However, Van Jones occurred at the same time and they couldn't finesse both. The other thing is governance, as opposed to self-promotion and campaigning, is hard.

And remember, for many of us, Palin, the economy, and McCain's bizzaro gimmicks sealed the deal in 2008. I wish American politics wasn't stuck in such a binary system, but there ya go.

Its his name number one and number two many southerners regardless of their racial beliefs have a strong belief in the greatness of the southern cause. I am not a southerner but I will not judge them for it either its just part of the culture and is refrenced for many reasons other than just race or slavery.

Groupthink, and tin ears. Litbolt is right that:

Obama's main strength is making his opposition look bad, while he comes off as the sober adult.

But that seems to be about the only winning political strategy he has, and he's beginning to seriously overplay his hand with it. You have to have a variety of ways of dealing with political opposition, and know when to play it one way, and when to go another way. The left seems to be delirious with the strategy of ridiculing and marginalizing all opposition, to the point that they don't realize that it's not going to work over and over and over again. Particularly not when you're trying to sell something or someone who is acceptable only to people on the margins but whose political views are way out of the mainstream (which is what I mean by tin ears- when you read some of the lefty blog commentary on the Van Jones resignation, you can see that some people had no clue that this guy would be controversial.)

I agree about Van Jones and the left's knee-jerk defense of him. Someone made the birther analogy earlier (I think Jazz) and while not perfect I think it fits, you would be leery of anyone with such a past. But as Jazz said, people should be given a chance and not character assassinated out of existence merely because of past political associations (I think with every President and Presidential candidate you can find a picture of them shaking hands with a convicted felon, tyrannical dictator, shady political operative).

"The left seems to be delirious with the strategy of ridiculing and marginalizing all opposition, to the point that they don't realize that it's not going to work over and over and over again."

I absolutely agree but if and only if the Republicans can find a Presidential candidate that isn't being currently fitted for clown shoes. All the Republican party Presidential candidates were awful and very worthy of mockery in their own way. The Republicans need their version of the sober adult, and it's taking them a while to realize that.

What was different about Obama was that he fought back but calmly rebuffing all smears. In past Dem vs. Rep battles we've seen Dems be boring first and then viciously mocked and derided by underhanded Republican tactics, such as Willie Horton, the Death By 10,000 Investigations of the Clinton Administration, the "robotic" and fat Al Gore, and the Swift Boat attacks. In each case these tactics succeeded. In Obama's case, however, being boring and safe won him the election, and Republicans could never seem to settle on a solid line of attack against him, and in each case, Obama's supporters managed to turn Republican smears into exaggerated caricatures (which didn't take much effort). So you can say the Republicans finally did themselves in when their messaging and branding became more important than actual competence and was so at odds with reality that the public finally took notice (sleepy beast that it is). And you're right, Cstanley that the Left has turned the most of Republican messaging (Fox, Rush, etc) into a cottage industry of satire and mockery (which for the most part it richly deserves). Will that scorn come to bite them in the ass? It has before, such as the dire warnings by the Left that the first Gulf War would be a "new Vietnam." That sloppy analogy was soon mocked out of existence.

Then there's the journalistic praise aspect to Obama's presidency, as each journalist sees Pulitzers dance before their eyes before they go to bed each night dreaming about Obama puff pieces (or hard hitting, critical analysis). I don't think the MSM worships Obama as much as people make out, but they do love him for being a source of news unto himself, so they can add "historic" this and "groundbreaking" that into their articles and soundbites. So I would hesitantly agree that Obama is having an easier time so far with the MSM.

So is Obama a one trick pony, only looking good as long as his opposition looks foolish? Will he defy the Left and risk setback in 2010? Is he unwilling or unable to use his office to maximum effect in order to promote his agenda? And will he and his staff finally learn how to vet people for office BEFORE scandals break out? Tune in next time!

I absolutely agree but if and only if the Republicans can find a Presidential candidate that isn't being currently fitted for clown shoes. All the Republican party Presidential candidates were awful and very worthy of mockery in their own way. The Republicans need their version of the sober adult, and it's taking them a while to realize that.

First off, there's more to a party than presidential politics- although there's certainly room to criticize many of the current incumbent GOP in other offices too (but not universally- there are some good ones and some good 'rising stars'.)

Second, I think that while you're entitled to your opinion, that seems very laden with hyperbole. The fact is that the candidate that did emerge for the GOP in '08 was among the most serious, one with a long respected record of bipartisanship and moderation (and yeah, I know there were things during the campaign that moderates didn't like, especially the Palin pick, but even that seemed highly influenced by their infatuation with Obama and reflexive criticisms of the right in general.) I know that the general election analysis that you present is the CW narrative, but I really don't think it's as true as you think it is. Obama was hardly a boring, safe candidate, although the true part of that is that generally his calm cool temperament made it hard for people to see how unconventional he was (and I'm not talking about skin color, but his politics and his unprecedented inexperience.)

Well, I happen to be a southerner and do not share the beliefs you describe -- the "greatness of the southern cause." I don't know if "Jefferson Davis" is the writer's name or not, but let me reword my statement: I don't really respect much of anything written by anyone who believes in the greatness of the southern cause.

I've lived with these people much of my life, and in my experience, anyone who still believes in the greatness of the southern cause is either a) a racist; b) uneducated about the economic and social benefits of slavery to whites in the antebellum south; or c) unwilling to be educated.

I have little knowledge of the attitude other then what I have seen and the explanations given to me where the ones I regurgitated here. They are not based on personal real world knowledge but what could very well be someone defending an indefensible position. I am a northerner and though I traveled through the south a lot and stayed in many areas for a time it is a mystery to me so I will have to defer to your knowledge on it as you are surrounded by that culture. When I asked him on a different comment string though he told me it was just his name and reflected nothing else and I took him at his word.

I'd bet his first name isnt jefferson.

Remember McCain had an awful primary campaign. He was being written off 18 months before the Presidential election, and emerged only because Romney and Huckabee split the various Republican factions. Besides, there was always a sense that the 2008 Republican candidate was a shoo-in sacrificial lamb, and not many serious people were competing for that honor. Then there were McCain's antics during the debates and "suspending" his campaign. Also, McCain downplayed his bipartisanship and veered sharply right. So maybe I need to adjust my analysis: during the Dem primary, Obama was the exciting black candidate, and he shifted chameleon-like during the general election and did little but allow McCain-Palin to implode. Compared to McCain-Palin, Obama seemed safe, and I think that's pretty solid CW.

Also, I disagree with your points that his inexperience is unprecedented and that Vice Presidential choices do not matter. However, I agree that Obama's politics concern everyone now because only he seems to know what the they are.

"Which begs the question of how they can keep making the mistakes of late"

Insularity as well as ignorance -- in addition to other problems, the Obama administration has at times demonstrated an apparent lack of touch with the real world and the public, as well as arrogance or what Hayek was referring to when he used the phrase, "fatal conceit." It's no surprise that Washington in particular is badly governed, and this year there is amateurism and a childish nature accompanying disturbing as well as repellent left extremism.

"Vice Presidential choices do not matter"

This is where the Bush-Cheney administration was far better than any other, for at least then the Vice President was a position of actual power and purpose. It should never be a Biden-buffoon-made kind of figurehead or "Good Time Charlie-Lite" position. The VP should be the principal federal domestic policy official, at the very least.

Problem is, no one has a clearly defined idea of what a Vice-President (or a First Lady, for that matter) should actually do outside of the very limited defined duties. But you're right that there's two schools of thought on the Vice-Presidency: one views it as a training ground for future Presidents, while the other sees it as the place where political careers come to die. Wonder which it is with Biden? lol

"(why DIDN'T they release the text beforehand is a valid question)"

It was released beforehand. Whether or not folks decided to take the time to read it is completely up to them.

To me the obvious thing to consider about the Vice Presidency is to consider the equivalent position on an aircraft or marine vessel, the next position below the captain. On this site with the zaniness that has developed as the Dems have gotten zanier this year, and my pushing back deliberately hard, it may seem a bit of a stretch, but it's not too silly to consider here the example I give for the Vice President, in lieu of something more applicable than the Cheney example: The role should be that of a First Officer (executive officer among all others but the captain), and the example I provide is of Mr. Spock in "Star Trek." Does that guy spend all day in his cabin doing nothing in exchange for his (no doubt, hefty) Starfleet pay check? No -- he's right beside and behind the captain, and ready at all times to take the role of the captain if the captain must be elsewhere or is otherwise occupied.

He should be the principal domestic policy official, the person the cabinet officials other than State, say, go to primarily, or often, and the person who deals routinely with governors in the states (which would have a much bigger and more powerful role if we ever returned to constitutional federalism in a strong and honest way, but which is a separate issue).

I'd use the VP as the primary domestic policy official ("super-governor") just as State is the primary foreign policy official (who works with the President in conjunction with the military secretary at DOD, as needed).

I also would like to see the VP be appointed (but subject to Senate approval, like Secretaries of the various Departments), especially if we went someday as many anticipate or hope to direct election of the Presidency. (Imagine a separate vote for the VP, or awarding it to the second-place finisher in a Presidential vote -- it could have a President and VP from different parties. Would the President risk going on foreign travel in such a case and having the VP do naughty stuff while he or she was away?)