Because I Said So

What a remarkable first five days the new president has had. He took an historic oath in front of a captive world audience and an unprecedented number of fans and supporters on the Washington D.C. Mall (who were kind enough to leave behind some 130 tons of trash). He enjoyed a welcoming reception that even megastar humanitarian and professional sunglass-wearer Bono would consider extravagant.

It hasn't all been champagne following the campaign. He’s also drawn criticism from both sides of the party line. Which is not to say that is in and of itself a bad thing; often times what is right is not always supported by popular opinion. Unfortunately, the a pair of recent gaffes go against the very platform upon which he ran.


Except for This Guy, I'm Totally Serious

In my opinion, Obama made several great decisions as he assumed his new title, which seemed to be universally accepted and embraced as such across the political spectrum. One was freezing the pay of staff members in a time of recession. The second was an effort to foster transparency by halting the revolving door of lobbyists with Executive Order – Ethics Commitments by Executive Branch Personnel, which states:

If I was a registered lobbyist within the 2 years before the
date of my appointment, in addition to abiding by the limitations of paragraph
2, I will not for a period of 2 years after the date of my appointment

(a) participate in any particular matter on which I lobbied
within the 2 years before the date of my appointment;

(b) participate in the specific issue area in which that
particular matter falls; or

(c) seek or accept employment with any executive agency
that I lobbied within the 2 years
before the date of my appointment.

The latter makes the appointment of William (Bill) J. Lynn as Deputy to Defense Secretary Robert Gates a bit confusing. Lynn is a former lobbyist for military contracting heavy-hitter Raytheon who falls outside the above criteria. Obama offered a waiver on his executive order, allowing Lynn to serve in the administration.

According to the AP, Lynn won’t be required to step back from all his decision making duties, but he has elected to sell his stock (essentially his personal stake in the company) and for one year will be subject to an ethics review (no word on who exactly will be conducting said reviews, though if it involves other politicians, that’s about as comforting as Winona Ryder working 'loss prevention' at a high-end department store).

So essentially, no lobbyists unless we decide we need said lobbyist. Is that really the message the administration is trying to convey?

He very well may be qualified for his appointed position. With a resume that includes time served in the Clinton administration and work done all across Pentagon, his understanding could truly be an asset. My question is simply, is there no one else that satisfies the criteria that president just laid out that can fulfill this role?

People are going to over-analyze every move Obama makes, detractors are waiting to prey on every misstep and mistake. This is not an effort to do so. I am merely pointing out that it seems fruitless to make an executive order then offer a waiver to get a guy through that doesn’t fit the qualifications that you just outlined earlier that week.

Obama Booya

The majority agree the United States is facing an economic crisis. Not everyone agrees, however, on which policies will best-serve the country on the road to recovery. Everyone knew getting the economy steered back on track was going to be a substantial undertaking and Obama’s pledged commitment to work across the aisle was refreshing. In November of 2008, Obama stated,

“America is a strong and resilient country, and I know that we will succeed if we put aside politics and partisanship.”

Yesterday, during a meeting about his plan to jump start the economy (I will analyze, breakdown, and editorialize said plan in another post), he offered Rep Eric Cantor (R-Va) the following explanation when questioned about the efficacy of his plan,

"I won. I will trump you on that”

Really?

You’re the President of the United States, the Leader of the Free World. Don't you think you could come up with a better response than “I won?”

Not everyone agrees with the president's plan. These perspectives should at least be heard, discussed, and considered.

According to the New York Post, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to those who could call the meeting 'window dressing' by saying,

“The President is certainly going to listen to any ideas”

Well yeah, he'll hear them. Of course, whether he actually considers any of them still remains to be seen. Which isn't to say that all ideas should be considered. I mean, American history is riddled with bad ideas (look up Alexander Abian).

While I appreciate the candor in the President's statements, Americans deserve better than a brash because-I-said-so response from our leader. It would serve President Obama well in the future to show some of the bi-partisan pragmatism he championed ad nauseum in the 18 months preceding his inauguration.

As he stated himself, Americans don’t want more of the same and they certainly deserve better than "because I said so."