Tuesday, August 16, 2011

Maureen Dowd's "Field of Dashed Dreams": Maybe Michelle Should Negotiate With the Republicans

Mitt Romney is no longer seriously in the running in 2012. As announced by the Rasmussen Reports (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/gop_primary_perry_29_romney_18_bachmann_13):

"The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Republican Primary voters, taken Monday night, finds Perry with 29% support. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor who ran unsuccessfully for the GOP presidential nomination in 2008, earns 18% of the vote, while Bachmann, the Minnesota congresswoman who won the high-profile Ames Straw Poll in Iowa on Saturday, picks up 13%."

The significance? Reference by New York Times columnists Gail Collins and Maureen Dowd to Seamus, the Irish Setter, driven by Romney from Boston to Ontario in a dog carrier strapped to the roof of his station wagon, will likely end. Collins and Dowd will need to find new material for their comedy routines.

And Maureen Dowd is indeed hustling up such material from Iowa, where, writing from Peosta without a mention of Romney, she quips in her latest op-ed entitled "Field of Dashed Dreams" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/17/opinion/field-of-dashed-dreams.html?_r=1&hp):

"In Cannon Falls, Minn., the president compared negotiating with House Republicans to negotiating with his wife.

In my house," Obama noted, "if I said, ‘You know, Michelle, honey, we got to cut back, so we’re going to have you stop shopping completely. You can’t buy shoes; you can’t buy dresses; but I’m keeping my golf clubs.’ You know, that wouldn’t go over so well."

In Decorah, he said: "Everybody cannot get 100 percent of what they want. Now, for those of you who are married, there is an analogy here. I basically let Michelle have 90 percent of what she wants. But, at a certain point, I have to draw the line and say, ‘Give me my little 10 percent.’ ”

Maybe Michelle should be the one negotiating with the Republicans.

Maureen also refers to Obama's interchange with an Iowa mother named Emily:

“Now, I know that people would like to say ‘Well, just do something to get these guys under control,’” he told Emily, adding: “You don’t want to reward unreasonableness. Look, I get that. But sometimes you’ve got to make choices in order to do what’s best for the country at that particular moment.”

The answer must have seemed lame even to Obama because, on the spur of the moment, he felt backed into doing what many in his White House and party wish he had done long ago. He told Emily he would put forward “a very specific plan to boost the economy, to create jobs and to control our deficit.” (But not until September.)

Already campaigning and abandoning the nettlesome job of governing, Obama has unwittingly informed the populace of his inability to strike favorable bargains when seeking compromise solutions with tough negotiating partners, be it his wife or House Republicans. Given this submissive attitude, Obama's bow to King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and his inability to contend with Ahmadinejad, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran, should come as no surprise. Obama is blessed with oratorical gifts, but never learned to lead.

The difference in style between Obama and new Republican frontrunner Perry is not lost on Ms. Dowd, who observes in her column Perry's unwarranted attack upon Federal Reserve chairman Bernanke. As I have observed in prior blog entries, rash characterizations of political opponents are apt to lead to violence, and Perry's conduct was entirely unwarranted, but as yet there has been no apology from the governor of Texas.

Obama against Perry in 2012? Is this the best America has to offer? Why can't it be Hillary (or Michelle) against Chris Christie? I, too, have my dashed dreams of competent leadership in the White House.

No comments:

Post a Comment