Inside the Obama administration, a debate is raging. In the face of the uprisings in the Middle East, Barack Obama has opted to sit on his hands. He has a talent for that. Robert Gates, who is extremely wary – one might even say, excessively wary – of commitments abroad, is happy about the President’s passivity; Hillary Clinton, who had hoped that we would act to tip the balance in Libya, is not. It would not be hard to imagine her resigning from the cabinet over this issue. The tensions are starting to mount.

In his comedy routine last week at the Gridiron Club, the President reportedly delivered remarks that had a certain edge. “I’ve dispatched Hillary to the Middle East to talk about how these countries can transition to new leaders – though, I’ve got to be honest, she’s gotten a little passionate about the subject,” he is said to have remarked. “These past few weeks it’s been tough falling asleep with Hillary out there on Pennsylvania Avenue shouting, throwing rocks at the window.” And in an interview yesterday with Wolf Blitzer on CNN, when Mrs. Clinton was asked four times whether she would agree to serve in any post under Barack Obama if he were re-elected in 2012, she responded on each occasion in the negative and refused further comment.

Here is what The Daily Caller reports: “Obviously, she’s not happy with dealing with a president who can’t decide if today is Tuesday or Wednesday, who can’t make his mind up,” a Clinton insider told The Daily. “She’s exhausted, tired.”

He went on, “If you take a look at what’s on her plate as compared with what’s on the plates of previous Secretary of States — there’s more going on now at this particular moment, and it’s like playing sports with a bunch of amateurs. And she doesn’t have any power. She’s trying to do what she can to keep things from imploding.”

(more…)

Sad to say, what I wrote last year at this time is hardly less apt today:  “The State of the Union Address is ordinarily a bore. It generally consists of a laundry list of proposals, and the list nearly always seems interminable. If Barack Obama has moxie, however, tonight could be different. His State of the Union Address could be a real game changer.”

“Here,” I then wrote, “is how he could do it – if he was really intent on saving his Presidency and on turning a disgraceful performance in that office into something worthy of eulogy. This evening, after the usual formalities, he could say:

My fellow Americans, let me begin by stating the obvious. The state of our union is not good. We seem to be – we may be – coming out of a recession. But, if so, the recovery is not only jobless; it is accompanied by an increase in employment.

This is contrary to my expectation. When I became President, my economic advisers told me that the rate of unemployment would be considerably lower now than it is. They were mistaken, and I erred in taking their advice. The fault is mine. I may not have gotten us into a severe recession, but I advanced proposals and I pursued policies which have prolonged and deepened it. I am at fault.

(more…)

“There is,” Shakespeare’s Brutus said to Cassius, “a tide in the affairs of men.”

Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat,
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.

Such, I suspect, were the musings of Hillary Rodham Clinton last night as she watched the election returns from a safe and distant perch in an East Asian hotel, and her thinking was no doubt in accord with what was going through the mind of William Jefferson Clinton as well.

As expected, judgment day came on the first Tuesday in November, and the Democrats suffered an historic defeat. In the House, they lost at least sixty seats, and they lost at least six seats in the Senate as well. Their share in the overall vote fell well short of that accorded the Republicans.

Of course, the liberal media will go to great lengths to deny the obvious – first, that this constituted a fully conscious repudiation of the agenda pursued by the administration of Barack Obama and by its Democratic allies in Congress and, second, that William Daley – former Secretary of Commerce, brother of the Mayor of Chicago, and mastermind of the Daley machine – was correct when, on Christmas eve, he warned his fellow Democrats that “the political dangers of this situation could not be clearer,” explaining, “Either we plot a more moderate, centrist course or risk electoral disaster not just in the upcoming midterms but in many elections to come.” But no one will credit their spin, and Democrats everywhere will quietly and privately begin to rethink their relationship with Barack Obama.

Those Democrats who survived the Republican tsunami and retained their House seats this year may be apt to suppose that they will survive in 2012 as well. But Senators up for re-election in that year will be inclined to think other thoughts.

(more…)

On Thursday, in Detroit, a federal district judge named George Caram Steeh ruled Obamacare constitutional. On Friday, Mike Pence, a Republican Congressman from Indiana, expressed his confidence that the Supreme Court will declare key sections of the bill unconstitutional.

I believe that Pence is right – and for three reasons: one principled, one personal, and one practical and political. The first is easy to grasp.

At stake, Pence asserts, is “whether or not the Constitution of the United States permits the government to order the American people to purchase goods or services, whether they want them or need them or not.” With this description of what is at issue, Judge Steeh, who was appointed to the court by William Jefferson Clinton, is in wholehearted agreement. As he puts it in his ruling,

The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket, is plainly economic. These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers, and the insured population who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.

It is his view that – since our “decisions” to buy or not buy insurance have an impact on the market – the federal government can make these decisions for us.

(more…)

Something ominous is happening within the Democratic Party, and Barack Obama will soon have to start paying attention. For weeks now, James Carville has been railing against the Obama administration’s handling of the oil spill in the Gulf. On Tuesday, Ed Rendell, Governor of Pennsylvania, added further fuel to the flames by issuing a warning. If Obama did not start pulling troops out of Afghanistan in July, 2011 as promised, he predicted that there would be a political insurrection within the party and that the President might face a primary challenge. It is in no way surprising that the Republicans have revived Hillary Clinton’s famous “3 a.m.” political advertisement and have given it a new spin, for they smell blood in the water. “Hillary was right,” they say. After the oil spill, the proverbial telephone rang and rang and rang, and the President . . . golfed, partied with celebrities, and went on vacation again and again.

Carville and Rendell have this in common. They are Democrats; they are fiercely partisan; and they were strong supporters of Hillary Clinton during the primaries back in 2008. Their maneuvers should perhaps be read in light of an op-ed piece that Leslie Gelb published in The Wall Street Journal back in the middle of June, suggesting that, when Robert Gates retires, Hillary be made the first female Secretary of Defense; that, in 2012, she be put on the ticket in place of Joe Biden; and that Biden be awarded the booby prize and be named Secretary of State.

I have no idea whether Gelb ran his piece past the Clintons before publishing it. But I would not be surprised. He, too, is a restless, frustrated, critical Democrat on the outs, and the scenario that he paints is by no means ridiculous. Joe Biden is not an asset, and Barack Obama views him with obvious disdain. Bill Clinton is a talented campaigner and a master in the art of staging comebacks, and in 2012 Hillary might be able to turn out a host of white women to vote for Obama who would otherwise sit on their hands.

As it happens, on Saturday, President Obama will have a priceless opportunity that he would be ill-advised to pass up. On that fateful day, in Rhinebeck, New York, on the estate of John Jacob Astor IV, if the rumors are borne out, Chelsea Clinton will marry Marc Mezvinsky in the presence of 400 of their parents’ best friends. And, although Bill Clinton is not a Sicilian, he would certainly be hard-pressed on so auspicious a day to deny anyone who asked of him a favor – least of all a sitting President of the United States who came to him, saying, May their first child be a masculine child!

(more…)

When, in The Federalist, Alexander Hamilton writes that “energy in the executive is a leading character in the definition of good government,” he refrains from asserting that energy in the executive is the leading character in the definition of good government. He is right to deploy the indefinite, rather than the definite, article. Had he chosen the latter, Thomas Jefferson’s accusations would have been on the mark: our first Secretary of the Treasury really would have been a monarchist of sorts.

What Hamilton had in mind, however, when he insisted on the necessity that the new nation be endowed with an energetic executive is the fact that a government in which the laws are not vigorously executed and in which emergencies are not confronted and handled with decision and dispatch is hardly a government at all. He knew that wisdom, prudence, and moderation are also required for a government to be good, and he recognized as well that the ends and sphere proper to government are limited. He was no less committed to the principles of the Declaration of Independence than was the man who had drafted it.

Hamilton was also aware that that Julius Caesar and Oliver Cromwell had been energetic executives, and to their number we can now add such luminaries as Napoleon Bonaparte, Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Fidel Castro, and Pol Pot. The executive temperament necessary for good government is not, alas, sufficient to guarantee its achievement.

If, as I argued in mid-June, it is now abundantly clear that Barack Obama lacks the temperament requisite in an executive, if, as I contended, he is inclined to shirk responsibility, shift the blame, dither, and punt, his administration is beyond question a government insufficient for our needs. This does not mean, however, that – merely by demonstrating energy, vigor, and dispatch in shouldering the responsibilities of executive office – Bobby Jindal of Lousiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, Mitch Daniels of Indiana, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota, Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, Jeb Bush of Florida, Haley Barbour of Mississippi, or any of the other potential presidential aspirants in the Republican Party who have been effective governors has demonstrated that he possesses all of the qualities called for in the grave crisis we now face.

All of the individuals I have named are impressive – as are, for example, Sarah Palin and Mike Huckabee. The moment has not yet arrived, however, for a thorough assessment of the qualities and outlook of each. There will be plenty of time for sorting through the candidates after the midterm elections.

(more…)

The State of the Union Address is ordinarily a bore. It generally consists of a laundry list of proposals, and the list nearly always seems interminable. If Barack Obama has moxie, however, tonight could be different. His State of the Union Address could be a real game changer.

Here is how he could do it – if he was really intent on saving his Presidency and on turning a disgraceful performance in that office into something worthy of eulogy. This evening, after the usual formalities, he could say.

My fellow Americans, let me begin by stating the obvious. The state of our union is not good. We seem to be – we may be – coming out of a recession. But, if so, the recovery is not only jobless; it is accompanied by an increase in unemployment.

(more…)