Out on the trail, in townhalls and in front of the GOP, Obama seems to be getting some of his mojo back. He actually used some Executive authority, but still only after asking permission and getting denied.
The question one asks might be, where are his force multipliers? Why isn't Kathleen Sibelius out on the trail? Isn't she in the loop? Where are the Democratic Governors?
And is Obama ready to use personnel policy to advance getting things done?
Whoever is advising Obama on LGBT issues or whoever put together the program to announce an effort on DADT needs to go, right? Face it, the politics of the issue are being bungled...not mangled, but bungled. What they have done is not how one goes about introducing a contentious legislative initiative.
They picked a nice, high-profile place to announce the change. But, it would appear that no one in the White House coordinated with key activists and opinion makers. So, what should have been a great announcement was meet with deep skepticism, and measured enthusiasm, because it lacked particulars. That suggests that an announcement should have been made before a speech like SOTU, so that Q&A could shape the message as it went out.
What else?
Well, the messaging is all over the place and deeply deficient. Just like it has been, to varying degrees, on healthcare, which also started with a simple statement and then ended up getting "restarted" with a speech to a joint-session of Congress.
This is what the President said, "This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. (Applause.) It's the right thing to do. (Applause.)"
Okay, "right thing to do". Weak, but got it.
Then, the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs, with a second message, says, "It's a question of integrity." Then, the SecDef has a third message or appeal, to shield the forces from the political debate.
Rewrite?
The SOTU has a Reaganesque story about someone who was discharged. The question is military readiness and now is the time for military readiness. It's also about not losing taxpayer investments in highly trained soldiers. He talks about personal integrity and so forth. The SecDef repeats that it is a question of readiness. The Chairmen then repeats the message. That's three heavy hitters pulling in the same direction and the American public is thinking about how unfair the policy is, because they've heard the story.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
The Fine Art of Politics
